United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R04-91/094
September 1991
&EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Charles Macon Lagoon &
Drum Storage, NC
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION i. REPORT NO. 2.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R04-91/094
4. Tide «nd Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Charles Macon Lagoon & Drum Storage, NC
First Remedial Action - Final
7. Authors)
8. Pertoiming Orgainizotion Name and Address
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
3. Recipient* Accession No.
S. Report Date
09/30/91
6.
8. Performing Organization Rept No.
10. ProjecVTask/WorkUnitNo.
11. Contract) C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
13. Type of Report A Period Covered
800/000
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
The 17-acre Charles Macon Lagoon & Drum Storage site is a former oil recycling and
antifreeze manufacturing facility in Richmond County, North Carolina. The site is
composed of the 16-acre Charles Macon Lagoon & Drum Storage site and the 1-acre
Dockery site, which is located 2,600 feet north of the Macon site. Land use in the
area is agricultural, and woodlands cover over half of the site. The site overlies
an unconfined aquifer, and surface runoff discharges to Pee Dee River, which runs
1 mile west of the site. A wetlands area exists between the site and the river.
Four residences are within 100 yards of the site and receive drinking water from the
municipal system. From 1979 to 1982, unpermitted waste oil recycling was conducted
at the facility using a large boiler to separate the waste oil from other wastes.
Site features resulting from these activities include drum storage areas, 12 unlined
or partially lined oil/water waste storage lagoons, buildings, 2 truck tankers, and
14 tanks. In 1980, State inspectors observed that several of the lagoons were
overflowing with metal-contaminated oil and sludge contaminating the ground. They
also discovered 175 deteriorating 55-gallon drums containing various chemicals
including VOCs and other organics. In a 1981 EPA RCRA compliance inspection of the
(See Attached Page)
NC
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
Record of Decision - Charles Macon Lagoon & Drum Storage,
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: soil, sludge, debris, gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (PCE, TCE, toluene, xylenes), other organics (PAHs), metals
__ -_._.,. (arsenic, chromium)
b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
c. COSATI Held/Group
18. Availability Statement
19. Security Class (This Report)
None
20. Security Class (This Page)
None
21. No. of Pages
140
.22. Price
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
See Instructions on Reverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R04-91/094
Charles Macon Lagoon & Drum Storage, NC
First Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
Macon site, 10 violations of RCRA regulations were cited. Subsequently, a court order
required the PRPs to initiate clean-up activities at Macon in 1982, which led to
identifying 2,100 drums, 10 tanks, and 11 lagoons of concern. Private funds were used
to remove 300 drums and the contents of one lagoon, as well as to install two monitoring
wells, before being depleted. EPA continued site activities in 1983 by removing 3,123
tons of waste and 137,000 gallons of oil. In 1984, EPA conducted similar removal
activities at the Dockery site, removing 709 tons of waste. After removal activites for
both properties had been completed in 1984, all but one lagoon, referred to as
Lagoon 10, had been excavated and backfilled. Because of the size of Lagoon 10, EPA
decided to backfill and cap the lagoon without excavating the contents. Recent
investigations., however, revealed that site soil and ground water still pose a threat,
particularly downgradient of source areas such as lagoon areas. This Record of Decision
(ROD) addresses soil, vessels containing hazardous materials, and ground water, which is
the principal threat at the site, and is a final remedy. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the soil, sludge, debris, and ground water are VOCs including PCE,
TCE, toluene, and xylenes; other organics including PAHs; and metals including arsenic
and chromium.
The selected remedial action for this site includes treating VOC-contaminated soil
around the Lagoon 7 area using in-situ vapor extraction with a carbon adsorption system
to remove off-gas organic contaminants; excavating and treating PAH-contaminated soil
from Lagoon 10 in an onsite, biological waste treatment cell equipped with a carbon
adsorption system to control emissions, followed by returning the treated soil to
Lagoon 10 and covering with a low permeability cap; emptying and dismantling all vessels
and demolishing buildings as necessary, and offsite disposal or recycling of hazardous
and non-hazardous wastes; further sampling of soil, sediments, and surface water;
pumping and treatment of ground water using air stripping and coagulation/filtration,
followed by discharging treated water to surface water if NPDES standards are met or to
an infiltration gallery if standards are not met; and monitoring ground water. The
estimated present worth cost for this remedial action is $8,700,000, which includes an
estimated present worth O&M cost of $5,400,000 for 30 years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: The chemical-specific clean-up goal for the Lagoon 7
area soil is PCE 3 mg/kg based on protection of ground water. The goal for Lagoon 10
area soil is total carcinogenic PAHs 2 mg/kg based on risk. Chemical-specific ground
water remediation levels were based on the more stringent of Federal or State standards
including PCE 0.7 ug/1 (State), TCE 2.8 ug/1 (State), toluene 1,000 ug/1 (MCL), total
xylenes 400 ug/1 (State), chromium 50 ug/1 (State), and lead 15 ug/1 (CERCLA).
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
MACON/DOCKERY SUPERFUND SITE
RICHMOND COUNTY
NORTB CAROLINA
PREPARED BY:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
REGION IV
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
-------
DECLARATION
FOR
THE RECORD OF OECISXOK
SITE NAME AMD LOCATION
Macon/Dockery
Cordova, Richmond County, north Carolina
STATEMENT OT BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for the
Macon/Dockery Superfund site in Richmond County, North Carolina chosen in
accordance with the comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 and, to the extent practicable, the National
Contingency Plan. This decision is based on the administrative record file for
this Site.
The state of North Carolina concurs with the selected remedy.
ASSESSMENT OP THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if not
addressed by implementing the response action selected in this Record of
Decision, may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public
health, welfare, or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
This remedy addresses the principle threat posed by this Site. The major
threat is the contaminated groundwater emanating from beneath the site. This
remedial action will also address residual and source soil contamination, and
remove the threat posed by vessel contents at the site.
The major components of the selected remedy include:
Extraction of groundwater across the entire Site that is contaminated
above «i*»
-------
-2-
on-*4te treatment of extracted groundwater via air stripping to
remove the volatile contaminants from the water column with the
need of controlling off-gas from the air-stripper to be evaluated
in the Remedial Design;
On-site treatment of the extracted groundwater to remove metals to
be evaluated in the Remedial Design;
Off-site discharge of treated groundwater will be to either
Solomons Creek (via NPDES permit) or to an infiltration gallery.
The actual point of discharge will be determined in the Remedial
Design; and
Continued analytical monitoring for contaminants in groundwater and
surface water.
SOIL
soil vapor Extraction
Installation of a network of air withdrawal (vacuum) wells in the
unsaturated zone;
Construction of a pump and manifold system of PVC pipes used for
applying a vacuum on the air extraction wells to remove the
volatile organic compounds and some semi-volatile organic compounds
from the soil; and
Implementation of an in-line water vapor removal system and an
in-line vapor phase carbon adsorption system to remove organic
compounds prior to releasing the extracted air to the environment.
Bioremediation
Construction of a waste treatment cell enclosed within a
greenhouse-type structure with vapor phase carbon adsorption to
control emission concentrations;
Excavation and transference of contaminated soil to the treatment
cell for bioremediation of PAHs;
reaching the targeted remediation levels, return of treated
•oil to excavation area; and
Grading of excavated area and revegetation.
VESSELS
Transferring all vessel (tanks, tankers, vats, boiler, and box
trailer) contents into secure transportation vehicles and
dismantling the vessels;
-------
-3-
Haxardous vessel contents will be taken to a RCRA-approved facility
for- disposal; and
Son-hazardous vessel contents and the vessel pieces will be
recycled or sent to an industrial landfill for disposal.
ADDITIONAL SAMPLING AND MONITORING
Additional sampling and testing of the contaminated surface waters,
sediments, and soils to better identify and define the ecological
effects of the contamination.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment,
complies with Federal and state requirements that are legally applicable or
relevant and appropriate to the remedial action, and is cost-effective. This
remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative Jjreatment technology to
the m»ri"""" extent practicable, and satisfiefl'^pF^^pitory preference for
remedies that employ treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume as
a principal element. Since this remedy may result in hazardous substances
remaining on-site above health-based levels, a review will be conducted
within five years after commencement of remedial action to ensure that the
remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the
environment.
Greer C. Tidwell ' Date
Regional Administrator
-------
MACOB/DOCXSRT ROD
TABLE OF COBTBHTS
SBCTIOB PACK No.
1. SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
a. Site Description I
b. Topography 5
c. G«ology S
d. Soils 5
a. surface Hater Hydrology 5
d. Bydrogeology 6
e. Meteorology 11
£. Demography and Land use 11
- g. Utilities 11
2. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 12
a. Site History and Previous Investigations 12
e. Enforcement Activities 18
3. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMKUNITY PARTICIPATION 20
4. SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION WITHIN SITE STRATEGY 21
5. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 22
a. Surface Soils 22
Macon Site 22
Dockery site 28
b. Vadose Zone Soils 28
c. around water 46
upper Macon site 46
Lower Macon Site 46
upper Dockery site 46
Lower Dockery site 52
Irivato nells 52
d. torfaoe water 52
e. sediment 52
f. Vessels 59
-------
MACOH /DOCKER! BOO
SBCTIOM PACE HO.
6. SUMMMGr OF SITE RISKS ............................................... 63
a . Contaminants of concern ........................................ 63
b. Exposure Assessment ............................................ 63
c . Toxic ity Assessment ............................................ 65
Carcinogens [[[ 65
Non-carcinogens ............................................... 65
d. Risk Characterization summary .................................. 68
Uncertainties ................................................. 63
e. Environmental (Ecological) Risk ................................ 72
7 . APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS (ARARS) ......... 73
a. Action-Specific ARARs .......................................... 73
b. Chemical -Specif ic ARARs ........................................ 73
Groundwater [[[ 73
F Contaminant Levels (MCLS ) ........................ 74
North Carolina Ground-Water standards .................... 74
Preliminary Pollutant Limit Values ....................... 74
Groundwater Remediation Levels ........................... 74
Surf icial soils ............................................... 77
subsurface soils .............................................. 77
Upper Kacon site .................................. ....... 77
Lower Macon site ............ . ............................ 80
upper Dockery site ....................................... 83
Lower Dockery site ....................................... 83
Surface Water* ....... ......................................... 83
Sediment* [[[ 83
Vessels . . [[[ 86
e . location-specific ARARs ......... . .............................. 86
d. JkBMS of Potential Remediation ................................. 86
-------
HACOH/DOCXBRI BOO
3ECTTO7 PACK HO.
8 . DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 90
a. REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES TO ADDRESS GROUNDHATER CONTAMINATION 90
GWC-1A: No Action 90
GWC-1B: Long-term Monitoring of Groundwater "... 90
GWC-2A: Recovery and Treatment of all site Groundwater
exceeding Groundwater Remediation Levels using
Air stripping, Coagulation/Filtration 93
b. REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES TO ADDRESS SOURCE CONTROL 97
SC-lt NO Action 98
SC-2: Cap former Lagoon 7 and Lagoon 10 98
SC-3: soil vapor extraction (SVE) for Lagoon 7,
cap Lagoon 10 101
SC-4: SVE for Lagoon 7, bioremediation for Lagoon 10 102
SC-5: SVE for Lagoon 7, off-site disposal for Lagoon 10 103
C. REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES TO ADDRESS VESSELS 104
v-1: No Action 104
V-2: Off-site disposal 105
9. SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 108
a. GROUND WATER CONTROL 109
overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 109
Compliance with ARARs Ill
Long-term Effectiveness and permanence Ill
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility or volume ill
short-term Effectiveness ill
Implementability Ill
Cost Ill
b. SOURCE CONTROL 112
overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 112
Compliance with ARARs . 112
Effectiveness and permanence 112
of Toxicity, Mobility or Volume 113
•Sort-term Effectiveness 113
Tmplementability 113
cost 113
C. VESSELS 114
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 114
compliance with ARARS 114
iii
-------
SECTIOeT PAGE
Long-term Effectiveness and permanence ........................ 114
Redaction of Toxicity , Mobility or volume ..................... 114
Short-term Effectiveness ...................................... 115
xaplementability .............................................. 115
Cost [[[ 115
d. MODIFYING CRITERIA 115
State Acceptance 115
Community Acceptance 115
10. SELECTED REMEDY 117
- a. GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION, TREATMENT, AND DISCHARGE 117
b. SOURCE REMEDIATION 120
Soil vapor Extraction 120
Bioremediation 121
C. VESSELS REMEDIATION 124
d. ADDITIONAL SAMPLING AND MONITORING 124
e. COST 125
11. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS ". 126
a. PROTECTION OP HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT 126
b. COMPLIANCE WITH ARARs 126
C. COST-EFPECTIVENESS 127
d. UTILIZATION OP PERMANENT SOLUTIONS AND ALTERNATIVE
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES OR RESOURCE RECOVERY
TECHNOLOGIES TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE 127
-------
KfcCOH/DOCXKRY ROD
LIST 07 FIGURES
FIGDRg
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
FigjMBfr-11
Figure 12
PAGE Mo.
Sit* Location Map ............................................ 2
Macon site Plan .............................................. 3
Dockery site Plan ............................................ 4
Macon site Hydrogeologic section ............................. 7
Macon site Water Table Potentiometr.ic Surf ace /Groundwater
Flow Map [[[ 8
Dockery Site Hater Table Potentiometric Surface/Groundvater
Flow Map [[[ 9
Surface water/Sediment Sampling Location Map ............... ... 56
Macon site Proposed Extraction Hell Location ................. 94
, Dockery site Proposed Extraction Well Cocation ............... 95
Groundwater Treatment Flow pjaggna^^M»^ ................... 96
-------
MACOH/DOOCZRY ROD
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
Table 11
Table 12
Table 13
Table 14
Table 15
Table 16
Table 17
Table 18
Table 19
Table 20
Table 21
Table 22
Table 23
LIST or
Summary of Groundwater sample Analyses Monitoring wells ....
summary of surface Water sample Analyses ...................
Summary of sediment sample Analysis ........................
summary of Macon/Dockery site contamination by Matrix ......
Upper Macon site - surface soil samples - organic
Analytical Results .......................................
Lower Macon Site - Surface soil samples - organic
Analytical Results .......................................
Upper Macon Site - Surface Soil samples - inorganic
Analytical Results .......................................
Lower Macon site - Surface soil samples - inorganic
Analytical Results .......................................
Upper Dockery site - surface Soil samples - inorganic
Analytical Results .......................................
Lower Dockery site - surface soil Samples - inorganic
Analytical Results .......................................
summary of site And Typical inorganics Data for Surface
soils [[[
Upper Macon site - Test Pit samples - organic Analytical
Results ..................................................
Lower Macon Site - Test Pit samples - organic Analytical
Results ........................... ^ ......................
Lower Dockery Site - Test Pit samples - Organic and
Inorganic Analytical Results .............................
Upper Macon Site - Test Pit samples - Inorganic
Analytical Results .......................................
Lower Macon Site - Test Pit Samples - inorganic
Analytical Results .......................................
Upper Macon Site - Soil Boring Samples - organic
Analytical Results ........... > ...........................
Lower Macon site - Soil Boring Samples - organic
Analytical Results .......................................
Upper Dockery site - soil Boring Samples - organic
Analytical Results .......................................
opp«r Macon Site - soil Boring Samples - inorganic
Analytical Results .......................................
Lower Macon site - soil Boring samples - Inorganic
Analytical Results .......................................
tipper Dockery site - soil Boring Samples - Inorganic
Analytical Results .......................................
Hacon sit* - Monitoring well soil Boring samples - organic 3
and Inorganics Analytical Results ........................
15
16
17
23
24
25
26
27
29
30
31
32
33
34
-------
lOCOH/DOCXKRY ROD
PACK HO.
Table 24 Dockery site - Monitoring Well soil Boring samples
- Organics and Inorganics Analytical Results 44
Table 25 Comparison of Vadose Zone Inorganics with Control Data 45
Table 26 Upper Macon site - Ground Water samples - organics
Analytical Results 47
Table 27 Upper Macon Site - Ground Water samples - Inorganics
Analytical Results 48
Table 28 Lover Macon site - Ground Water samples - Organics and
inorganics Analytical Results 49
Table 29 Upper Dockery site - Ground water Samples - organics
Analytical Results 50
Table 30 upper Dockery site - Ground Water samples - inorganics
Analytical Results 51
Table 31 Lower Dockery Site - Ground Water samples - organics and
Inorganics Analytical Results 53
Table 32 Private Well Samples - organics and inorganics
Analytical Results 54
Table 33 Macon Site - Surface Water samples - Organics and
Inorganics Analytical Results 55
Table 34 Dockery Site — surface Water samples - Organics
and Inorganics Analytical Results 57
Table 35 Macon Site - Sediment samples - organics and Inorganics
Analytical Results 58
Table 36 Dockery site - Sediment samples - organics and Inorganics
Analytical Results 60
Table 37 Toxicity characteristics Leaching Procedure (TCLP)
Results for the Macon site Vessels Sampling 61
Table 38 Summary of estimated Volumes of Materials in Vats,
Tankers, and Tanks at the Macon/Dockery site 62
Table 39 Exposure Point Concentration 64
Table 40 Modeled Pish Tissue Concentrations in Pee Dee River
at Solomon'• Creek 66
Table 41 Carcinogenic Toxicity Values 67
Table 42 Non-Carcinogenic Toxicity Values 69
Table 43 Summary of Risk 70
Table 44 Risk « Hazards Associated with Potential Future use 71
Table 45 Comparison of Drinking water, Ground Water, and
Contract Required Detection/Quantitation Limits
for Chemicals Detected in Macon/Dockery Ground water 75
Table 46 around Water Remediation Levels for the Macon/Dockery site 76
Table 47 Potential Soil Remediation Levels - Upper Macon site 73
Table 48 Potential Soil Remediation Levels - Lower Macon site
- Lagoon #10 81
Table 49 Potential Soil Remediation Levels - Lower Macon site
- Lagoon #11 82
Table 50 Potential Vadose Zone Remediation Levels - upper
Dockery Site 84
vii
-------
MfcCOB/DOCXKKX ROD
Table 51
Table 52
Table 53
Table 54
Table 55
Table 56
Table 57
Table 58
PAGE HO.
Potential vadose zone Remediation Levels - Lover
Ooekery site 95
Potential Location-specific ARARa 87
Groundvater Control Technology summary ., 91
Source Control Technology summary , • 92
Summary of vessel contents 106
Total Present Worth Costs for Retained Remedial
Alternatives 110
Ground Water Remediation Levels for the Macon/oockery site .... 118
Source Remediation Levels for the Macon/Dockery site 122
Vlll
-------
M*CO«/DOCKBUr ROD
The Charlea Macon Lagoon and Drum storage site and the Dockary site,
collectively referred to aa the Macon/Dockery Site, located in Richmond county,
North Carolina, was operated aa a waste oil recycling and antifreeze
manufacturing facility from 1979 to 1982. The site ia located approximately 1
mile eaat of the Pee Dee River and 1.6 miles southwest of Cordova, North
Carolina on State Road (SR) 1103. The land between .the site and the river
constitutes a wetlanda area and contains the nearest downslope stream, 1,050
feet from the aite. The site ia partially bordered to the south by a fence
separating woods and farmland, to the eaat by SR 1103; and to the north by
wooda and farmland. Aa indicated on Figure 1, the Site comprises two
non-contiguous, independently owned parcels of land: a 16-acre tract owned by
relatives and heira of Charlea Macon, and a one-acre tract owned by John
Dockery. The Dockery property ia located approximately 2,600 feet north of the
Macon property on the weat side of SR 1103. The Macon site ia located at 34*
53* 30" north latitude, 79° 50' 18" weat longitude, and the Dockery site ia
located at 34° 53' 52" north latitude, 79° 50' 18" weet longitude.
For reference purposes, the Macon and Dockery sites have been divided into.the
upper and lower Macon Sites and the upper and lower Dockery sites (Figures 2
and 3, respectively). The upper site in each case ia located adjacent to SR
1103 which follows a topographic ridge east of the sites. The lower site in
each caae ia located topographically downgradient and west of the upper site.
a. site Description
The Macon property ia approximately 60 percent wooded. Several cleared areas
are preaent at the Macon site where drum storage area*, three unused surface
impoundmenta, and 11 oil/water waste atorage lagoons were located. As
indicated on rigor* 2, Boat of the waate lagoona (Lagoons 1 through 9) were
located-in cleared areaa on the upper Macon site. Two waate atorage lagoona
(Lagoona 10 and 11) were located on the southweat portion of the lower Macon
site . Three espty and unuaed surface impoundments were located in the
northern portion of the lower Macon site (Figure 2). In addition to the above,
4 buildioajv* 2 track tanker a, 1 box trailer and 13 tanks remain on the upper
Macon Sititalong with 1 tank at the lower Macon site.
The Dock*ry property ia wooded with few cleared areaa (Figure 3). A single
unpaved road providee acceaa to the Site from SR 1103. one waste lagoon
(lagoon. 12 at lower Dockery), as well as several drum storage areas were
located in clearinga on the Dockery Site. Drum storage primarily occurred at
the cleared area that forms the upper Dockery site.
-------
CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET
..-..•MIA -C C-««l*nt ... MB—•••••II
-------
l>
TJ
O
00
rzj
'\ \
^,\V\ ,xv- •-. \ .\ , ^v\ \>
•&x\ • -•:: v\ \ \ s \u*fc)
%:C;;--;--;X;::N.>..^ .,- "^ •• \ai/i/;;^//
lil' YV;;;Vv-> , |
I if -€-;:^--.V ~:'V N V ^V.^-1 !•
'. Ji! $•$?' "\\x //• •-'•% i •: \\
«p.; :;:s% v
' iv;:^ 'A
:
'"^fw^?^
• //. • • ...Y -cniyc:r-jj
i / i. .»•"—> — ••
• 5-iAiuv
-------
'.-.i/mi
-/ /•/ ••
rigur. 3 Oock«ry Bit*
-------
1OCOH/DOCXKRT ROD
The area vh«re the Macon and Dockery Sites are located lies on the western
margin at the Sandhills Region of the Inner coastal Plain Physiographic
Province. The topography in this area is generally smooth with extensive
gently rolling interatream areas. The site slopes toward the Pee Dee River
from an approximate elevation of 275 feet above mean sea level (MSL) to
approximately 160 feet above MSL at the western boundary of the sites. Along
the Pee Dee River, the topography becomes more rugged with deeply dissected
stream valleys where tributaries flow into the river. A broad, flat alluvial
plain approximately 2,000 feet wide is located about 1,000 feet west of the
Site adjacent to the Pee Dee River.
c. ecology
The sitet are located in the Pee Dee River Basin near the Coastal
Plain/Piedmont physiographic boundary. Based on borehole logs and the
observation of bedrock outcroppings, the layer of residual soil and saprolite
on competent bedrock at the site is estimated at 30 to 95 feet thick. Residual
soils are thickest in the area of the upper Macon and Dockery sites and thin
westward with increasing proximity to the Pee Dee river. The unsaturated zone
of soil (also called the vadose zone) ranges from 25 to 35 feet thick. The
bedrock is granite and gneiss.
d. Soils
The Macon/Dockery site lies almost directly on the Piedmont-Coastal Plain soil
province boundary. The soils in the area consist of groups common to both
provinces. These include the Cecil and iredell soils of the Piedmont province
and the Norfolk, Orangeburg, and Greenville soils of the Coastal Plain
province,
•• surface Wat*r Hydrology
Surface water and storm runoff on the Macon Site primarily drains to the west
in the direction'of Solomon's Creek (Figure 1). Water which exits the northern
portion of the Macon site enters either a small pond located in the western
portion of the lower Macon site or an unnamed first order tributary to
Solomon'*-Crack. Water flowing from the southern portion of the Macon site and
the small,, goad enters Solomon's creek. Solomon's creek enters the Pee Dee
River apncwdaatsjly two miles downstream from where site runoff enters
Solomon's Creek.
surface water runoff from the Dockery site flows via numerous gullies and
intermittent streams. Water leaving the northern portion of the Dockery site
enters a westward-flowing tributary to the Pee Dee River. That tributary
enters the Pee D«« River approximately one mile west of the Dockery site.
Water leaving the southern portion of the Dockery Sit* enters the same unnamed
tributary to Solomon's Cre«k as water leaving the northern portion of the Macon
-------
MACOB/DOCXSRY ROD
Sit*. Water 'from the Dockery site enters the tributary approximately one-half
mile upstream of the Macon site.
d*
Four distinct hydrogeologic units were encountered at the Macon/Dockery site
during the RI. These units are distinguished primarily by differences in
lithology and also by differences in relative permeabilities. In order of
descending depth, these units include (1) a perched water table, (2) a shallow
saprolite unit, (3) a transition zone of partially weathered rock, and (4) a
bedrock unit. The shallow saprolite unit, transition zone, and bedrock are
likely to be hydraulically interconnected as no apparent laterally extensive
confining layer was observed. Based on data obtained from both the Macon and
Dockery sites and in view of their close proximity, the hydrogeology of the two
sites appears to be similar. All monitoring wells are screened in the
saprolite or in the transition zone. Hydrogeologic cross sections for the
Macon site are shown in Figure 4.
Evidence of a perched water table was observed during drilling and test pit
excavation activities at the upper and lower Macon site and during drilling
activities at the upper Dockery Site, when encountered, the perched water
table was present as a thin, laterally discontinuous horizon of saturated
soils. Perched water contained in this unit is believed to recharge the
underlying shallow saprolite aquifer.
Depth to the perched water table is estimated to range from 14 to 20 feet. The
saturated thickness of the perched water table is estimated to be approximately
1 to 2 feet. Although hydraulic conductivity (k) was not measured, attempts to
produce water from this interval while drilling the borehole for MW-10 indicate
that the yield of the perched water table is extremely low.
An unconfined, shallow aaprolite unit is present throughout most of the
Macon/Dockery site, except where partially weathered rock or bedrock is exposed
at land surface. This unit comprises the water table aquifer throughout most
of the sit* and is generally encountered between 20 to 35 feet below land
surface. Depth to the water table generally decreases with increasing
proximity to the Pee DM River. The saturated thickness of the shallow
saprolite unit is approximately 20 to 30 feet.
The lateral conponent of groundvater flow for the shallow saprolite unit at the
site is, la 7«n«rs1 , to the west-northwest with an approximate hydraulic
gradient e* 0.07. A potentiometric map illustrating the configuration of the
water t*b$* «t the Macon and Dockery sites is provided on Figures 5 and 6 .
water table configuration approximately parallels site topography. Thus, the
topographic ridge which parallels SR 1103 is believed to act as a hydraulic
divide for local groundvater flow.
Hydraulic conductivities obtained from slug tests conducted in 12 wells in the
shallow saprolite unit ranged from 0.07 ft/day to 16.71 ft/day with an
arithmetic average of approximately 2.4 ft /day. Hydraulic conductivities in
MW-05 (6.71 ft /day) and MH-07 (16.71 ft/day) were much greater than the 10
-------
TJ
O
00 -
:a:a
OO
J l«-
l»-
HIOHOUULObIC UCIIOH
t«MUCWtM S
«caiiCM. ciAcai
II CliiVUtl IMAMIU I
rigur« 4 lUcon tit« Bydrog«ologic ••otioa
-------
H.co» .it. «t.r MO. I—
Flow Hap
-------
-------
MftCOB/DOCXBBX KOO
other •hallow wells tatted (<3.0 ft/day) and therefore, tha arithmetic average
of 2.4 ft/day is considered high, consequently, the mora appropriate geometric
average for these 12 walla ia 0.55 ft/day. These differences in hydraulic
conductivity raflect the anisotropic and heterogenous character'of the unit.
A transition zone of partially weathered rock separates the saprolite and
bedrock units. Geologic logs indicate that this zone has an approximate
thickness of 5 to 20 feet. The groundwater flow direction in the transition
zone appears to be in a westerly/northwesterly direction towards the Pee Dee
River.
Hydraulic conductivities calculated from slug tests performed in the 4 wells
screening this unit range from 0.34 ft/day (MH-08A) to 22.19 ft/day (MW-02A),
with an average value of 7.64 ft/day. These variances are believed to indicate
that the hydraulic characteristics of this unit are heterogenous and
anisotropic. Considering the fine-grained size of the materials composing the
unit, the observed maximum value for hydraulic conductivity of 22.19 ft/day
exists in localized areas of limited extent.
Horizontal groundwater flow velocities for both the Macon and Dockery sites
were estimated using the geometric mean of hydraulic conductivities and the
average (arithmetic) hydraulic gradient across each Site. The geometric mean
for hydraulic conductivity was considered to be the most representative for the
entire flow regime due to apparent heterogeneous and anisotropic conditions-
indicated by the slug test results.
The geometric mean calculated from slug-test data on 16 walla is 0.82 ft/day.
Using an arithmetic average hydraulic gradient for the Macon site of 0.05
ft/ft, the estimated groundwater velocity for the Macon site is 0.21 ft/day.
For the Dockery Site, the estimated groundwater velocity is 0.16 ft/day
(arithmetic average hydraulic gradient of 0.04 ft/ft).
Bedrock of regional extent underlies the perched water table, saprolite unit,
and transition zone. This aquifer is predominantly composed of granite,
although it may ^grade into gneiss at certain localities. Ho site-specific
information^^ "available concerning to the frequency and extent of any
fractures within tfiis unit. There are no bedrock wells at the Site.
Groxfnd water elevations collected at well pairs on the upper Macon site
indicate that recharge froa the saprolita unit to the transition zone is
occurring. Approximate downward vertical gradients were from 0.006 to 0.14
ft/ft. Vertical hydraulic conductivities obtained from Shelby tube samplas
ranged frosx 0.00853 to 0.262 ft/day, with a geometric average of 0.04 fz/ci»y.
using this? average value, vertical groundwater flow velocities were estimated
to be from 0.001 to 0.028 ft/day.
Only one well pair is located at the Upper Dockery site. A vertical upward
hydraulic gradient of 0.05 ft/ft was measured at this well pair. Using the
average vertical hydraulic conductivity of 0.04 ft/day at the Macon sire, the
vertical ground water velocity for the upper Dockery site is 0.01 ft/day. This
upward hydraulic gradient suggests that discharge to the shallow unit is
occurring at the Upper Dockery site, seasonal variations in ground water
elevations may influence the direction of the vertical groundwater flow.
10
-------
MACOM/DOC&2KX
Climate in the study site area is moderate, characterized by cool winters and
hot summers. Average minimum temperatures are just below freezing during the
winter months with an average high temperature of 54 to 57°F. High
temperature* for the summer months average near 90eF with average minimum
temperature* around 66°F. Annual average precipitation is 48 inches.
The prevailing wind directions for the area are south or southwest for moat of
the year. For three months out of the year the prevailing direction is
northeast. Destructive winds do not occur frequently, but may occur in the
form of tornadoes or hurricanes which strike the coast.
Current land use within a one mile radius of the Sites is primarily
agricultural with limited residential use along Old cheraw Road (SR 1103).
Residential use Increases northeast of the site as one approaches the community
of Cordova 1.5 miles away. Much of the land surrounding the site is
uninhabited and undeveloped. However, four residences are within approximately
100 yards of the site. Hunting is the primary human activity at the site.
Richmond County in general is not a heavily populated area. The total county
population is 46,853 based on the 1989 census. With a total area of 447 square
miles, the population density is only 105 persons per square mile. No specific
information is available for the area surrounding the site; however, it ia
estimated that the density within a one mile radius is on the order of 10
persons per square mile.
g. Otilities
Electricity, city water, and telephone connections are present along SR 1103.
Municipal sever and natural gas services are not available.
11
-------
M&COB7/DOCXKRY BOO
2 •
IB Investigations
The Charles Macon land was obtained by Charles and Dorothy Macon as five
separate tracts from various individuals, one tract was purchased by the
Macons in 1965; Mrs. Macon purchased the other four in November 1972.
There is no official record of land use on the Macon property before May 1979.
There are some indications and verbal reports that it was used to dispose of
unspecified manufacturing wastes and oils, many of which were generated from
the various business enterprises in which Mr. Macon engaged. The earliest
documented evidence of waste disposal dates from May 1, 1979, at which time Mr.
Macon formed and incorporated two waste disposal-related corporations. These
corporations conducted a waste oil recycling business under the name of Macon
Farms Trucking, Inc. and Macon Machine company, Inc.
From May 1979 through May 1981, Mr. Macon operated the site as a waste oil
recycling plant, with Macon Farms Trucking transporting the waste to the site
and Macon Machine Company treating the waste. However, on June 27, 1980, Mr.
Macon sold his entire interest in Macon Farms Trucking, Inc., including the
capital stock, to several individuals who subsequently moved the company to
South Carolina. In May 1981, Mr. Macon leased the Macon Machine facility and
five acres of land to ctM oil Distributors which operated the recycling plant
until March 1982.
on June 5, 1979, Mr. Macon notified the North Carolina Department of Natural
and Economic Resources, Division of Environmental Management (DEM) that Macon
Machine Company was installing a large boiler to remove waste from waste oil.
The process used involved heating large amounts of waste oil, which was then
skimmed. Haste oil converted by this process was obtained from various
generators and stored in surface impoundments at the site. This type of oil
reclamation process emits sulfur dioxide (SO?) during the heating process.
Ot* December 4, 1979, Mr. Macon applied for a permit to construct and operate an
fair"pollution abatement facility to control SO2 emissions. OEM granted the
permit for construction and operation of an air pollution abatement device for
the boiler firing chamber on February 13, 1980.,, ,0 . • "
DEM requested that the North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid and
Hazardous Waste Management Branch (DHR) conduct an investigation of the Macon
operation because the facility did not have a psrsit to recycle waste oil. on
October-&H 1*»O,- a site inspection by DHR confirmed that Mr. Macon was
handlingr8*dMtd6u« substances. inspectors observed that waste oil was stored
in 12 nnljtwd' and partially lined surface impoundments or lagoons. The lagoons
were overflowing and contaminating the surrounding ground, inspectors also
discovered'175 55-gallon drum* in various stages of deterioration, many of them
broken or leaking. The-drums contained waste such as methanol, toluene, vinyl
thinners, epoxy, enamels, lacquers, ethyl acetate, caustic soda, and methylene
12
-------
MACOH/DOCXKRI ROD
chloride, oil and sludge in the lagoons contained lead, chromium, and barium
at levels considered hazardous under the Federal Resource conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). DHR notified Mr. Mac on on November 10., 1980, that he was
handling hazardous waste oil as a generator, storage facility operator, and
transporter, and instructed him to notify the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) a* required by law.
In May 1981, DHR conducted a routine inspection of records kept by a local
manufacturing company. During the inspection DHR discovered that the Macon
Machine Company was the recipient of 12 55-gallon drums of sodium hydroxide
liquid waste. DHR reinspected the Macon site to locate the sodium hydroxide
containers and discovered that conditions remained unchanged from those found
during the October 22, 1980, inspection. An inspection of manifests and random
sampling of material at the site revealed that sodium hydroxide, a RCRA listed
waste, had been transported to the site, samples collected also exhibited the
characteristic of corrosivity (pB 13.7). Samples of waste oil analyzed
exceeded B.P. Toxicity limits for chromium, barium and lead. One week later,
on May 26, 1981, DHR recommended that EPA conduct its own investigation and
evaluation of the Macon site.
EPA responded by conducting a RCRA Compliance inspection on July 16, 1981. Ten
violations of RCRA regulations were cited at that time including: permit
violation; failure to maintain a written inspection schedule, contingency plan,
or waste analysis plan; and failure to train staff, provide safety equipment,
or arrange emergency response with local authorities. A subsequent review of
RCRA files indicated that the company had failed to submit an application for
interim status under Subpart A. of RCRA, as required, and therefore was
classified as a non-notifier.
on March 26, 1982, after Mr. Macon'a death, DHR sued the Charles Macon estate,
Dorothy Macon, and C 6 M Oil Distributors to initiate cleanup activities on the
Macon site. The relief was granted based on the actual or threatened release
of hazardous substances from the site and the defendants were ordered to remove
all waste from the site, in compliance with the court order, Mr. Donald
Dawkins, the executor of the Macon estate auctioned its assets, and used tha
proceeds to initiate cleanup activity at the site-in November 1982. Mr.
Dawkins hired an engineering firm to field screen, label, sample, remove drums,
and install two groundvater monitoring wells. Hazardous materials were found
stored at the Macon portion of the site in more than 2,100 55-gallon drums,
approximately 10 balk tanks, and 11 surface impoundments. A total of 300
55-gallon drua* and the contents of one lagoon were removed, and two on-aite
monitoring wells were installed downgradient from the lagoon area before the
Macon estxfcst funds were exhausted, with no other resources available, DHR
requested BPA's assistance to complete the cleanup operations.
EPA initiated a removal at the Macon site on November 11, 1983. During the
removal, a total of 3,123 tons of waste and 137,000 gallons of oil was removed
from the site. SPA pumped water from 10 of the lagoons and dispersed it on
land in accordance with procedures outlined by DHR and DEM. Reusable oil was
pumped from the lagoons and taken to an oil reclaiming facility, oil and
hydrocarbon sludges remaining in the lagoons were solidified, removed, and
disposed of in a RCRA-permitted hazardous waste facility in South Carolina.
The lagoons were then filled, graded, and seeded for grass.
13
-------
Removal operations on the Dockery property began on January 9, 1984. Hazardous
materials at this portion of the site were stored in one unlined surface
impoundment and in approximately 230 55-gallon drums. A total of 709 tons of
waste was removed from the site in similar operation to those conducted on the
Macon property.
All lagoons on the Macon and Dockery property were excavated and back filled
with soil except Lagoon 10 which is reported to contain an estimated 940 tons
of creosote waste. Due to the volume of solidification materials required for
this lagoon, it was decided by the On scene Coordinator that the lagoon would
be back filled and capped with a synthetic liner and a 3-foot clay cap. Prior
to capping, Lagoon 10 received five truckloads of solidified sludge from Lagoon
7, two truckloads of boiler fly ash, 43 crushed empty drums and an unknown
quantity of contaminated soil from the drum staging area.
Methanol-based antifreeze stored in 3,000 I-galIon containers was transferred
into 55-gallon drums and solidified on the site. Material in the remaining
drums was solidified and delivered to South Carolina for disposal at a
permitted RCRA facility, and a local scrap metal company removed empty drums
from the site. In addition, 246 calcium hydroxide flare charges were removed
by the Explosive ordinance Disposal unit of the U.S. Army.
Immediate removal activities for both the Macon and Dockery properties were
completed on January 17, 1984.
In February 1985, NUS Corporation began a geological and sampling investigation
of the site (NUS, 1985). The objective of the investigation was to obtain
hydrogeological data and collect samples of soil, ground water, surface water,
and stream sediments. The data obtained during this investigation was used to
determine site conditions following the initial clean-up and to provide data
needed to apply the Hazard Ranking system (HRS) to the site. Under this
investigation, NUS installed one upgradient well (MW-01) and three downgradient
wells (MW-02, MH-03, MW-04) at the Macon site. The upgradient well was
installed across SR 1103 from the Macon site and the three remaining wells were
installed immediately downgradient of Lagoons 2, 6, and 10. Groundwater
samples collected from the four wells were analyzed for purgeable and
extractable organic* and inorganic constituents. Groundwater samples were also
collected from well Mr-OS, which was installed during the initial site clean-up
and analyzed for inorganics. A summary of analytical results are included in
Table 1. Surface wat*r and sediment samples were also collected at the site
during the HUs investigation. These samples were analyzed for purgeable and
s=trietsbl« organic* and inorganics. Results of these analyses are included in
Table 2 and Table 3.
The Macott/Dockery sit* scored 47.10 out of a total of 100 on the Hazard Ranking
system (BM). This sit* was proposed for addition to the Superfund National
Priority List (NFL) in January 1987 because of actual and threatened releases
of hazardous substances. The site was placed on the NPL in July 1987 making it
eligible to receive Federal funding for long-term action.
14
-------
TABU 1
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER SAMPLE ANALYSES
MONITORING WELLS
CHARLES MACOK DRUM AND LAGOON SITE
RICHMOND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PARAMETER (ug/1)
EXTRACTABLE ORGANICS
3 , 3-DICHLOROBENZIDINE
FURGEABLE ORGANICS
1 , 1-DICHLOROETHENE*
1 , 1-DICKLOROETHANZ*
TRICHLOROETBYLENE
1,1,2, 2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
ACETONE
PESTICIDES
GAMMA-BBC
PCB-1254
INORGANICS
BARIUM*
COBALT*
CHROMIUM*
COPPER*
NICKEL*
VANADIUM* '
ZINC*
MW-01
40
—
—
~
—
84
—
~
60
•—
•—
—
—
—
20
MW-02
— —
7.3
6.9
200
42
14
•
—
"
200
— •
10
«—
- ».
•—
60
MW-03
~
..
~
—
—
""
—
~
300
—
30
—
—
30
90
MW-04
—
..
-—
—
~
51
O.S3
4.9
700
30
20
30
20
30
200
KW-05
KA
NA
NA
KA
KA
KA
KA
KA
400
200
--
—
60
--
40
RESULTS TAKEN FROM NUS REPORT DATED JANUARY 10,
— ANALYZED FOR BUT HOT DETECTED
N/A NOT ANALYZED
1986
15
-------
CDOKK, *»*"» w**—
pUKSEaBIZ CSGftNICS
ACEICNE
MMX3S5XCM*
SCN*
16
POOR QUA
ORIGINAL
-------
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT SAMPLE ANALYSES
CHARLES KACON DRUM AND LAGOON SITE
RICHMOND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PARAMETER (ug/fcg)
EXTRACTABLE ORGAN I CS
BIS (2-ETHYLHZXYL) PHTHALATE*
C9 ALKL KETONE**
UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS*
PURGEABLE ORGANICS
TOLUENE
DICHLORODIFLUROMETHANE* *
PESTICIDES
4, 4 -DDE
INORGANICS
BARIUM*
COBALT*
CHROMIUM*
COPPER*
NIOffiL*
LEAD*
TIN*
VANADIUM*
ZINC*
ALUMINUM*
MANGANESE*
CALCIUM*
MAGNESIUM*
IRON*
SODIUM*
BACKGROUND
—
400
3,000/5
..
~
11
200,000
30,ooa
80,000
40,000
40,000
100,000
50,000
100,000
300,000
30,000,000
1,000,000
4,000,000
4,000,000
50,000,000
1,000,000
1ST POND
—
—
3,000/2
.—
""
—
100,000
•—
R
~
••—
R
— —
30,000
~
20,000,000
•—
1,000,000
—
8,000,000
""
2ND POND
—
— —
1,000/2
27
""
—
800,000
— •
60,000
30,000
70,000^
R
50,000
50,000
200,000
40,000,000
700,000
5,000,000
2,000,000
£0,000,000
""
SWAMP
1,500
-.—
10,000/4
«._
40
--
200,000
——
60,000
• ^
——
600,000
— —
70,000
80,000
20,000,000
1,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
30,000,000
R DATA UNUSEABBT 1ASED ON QUALITY
/ CONCENTRATIOJMraiBER OF COMPOUNDS
— ANALYZED FOJTiBT HOT DETECTED
ND NONE DETECTED
* ESTIMATED VALUE
** PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL (ESTIMATED VALUE)
RESULTS TAKEN FROM NUS REPORT DATED JANUARY 10, 1986
17
-------
MACOH/DOCXBRX ROD
In 1980, the {forth Carolina Department of Environmental Health and Natural
Resource* (DHR) determined that Macon was handling hazardous waste oil as a
generator, storage facility operator, and transporter. In 1981, DHR
recommended that EPA conduct its own investigation and evaluation of the site.
In 1982 the estate of the then deceased Macon was ordered to initiate cleanup
activity on the Macon portion of the site, when the estate's resources were
exhausted, DHR requested assistance from EPA. In 1983 EPA issued
immediate-removal notice letters to the following companies and individuals:
1. John Dockery
2. crown cork and seal, Inc.
3. Acme Nameplate t Manufacturing, Inc.
4. AquAir corporation
. 5. van straaten chemical Co.
6 . Inmont corporation
7. B. I. OuPont de Nemours 4 Co., Inc.
8. Exxon
9 . The Lilly company
10. Anderson Oil and chemical Co., inc.
11. Frederick Guam chemical Co., Inc.
12. Ashland Chemical co.
13 . Ethyl Corporation
14. Dorothy Macon
All of the potentially responsible parties (PRPs), declined to participate in
the removal. In 1983, EPA initiated a removal at the Macon Site under the
authority of section 104 of CERCLA. Removal operations on the Dockery property
began in 1984. Removal actions at both sites were completed in 1984. The cost
of the removal action was approximately $577,618 for the Macon site and
$118,438 for the Dockery site.
After a 1985 Techlaw Responsible Party search, SPA sent demand letters to the
above named individual* and other identified PRPs requesting reimbursement for
the removal coat. After these coat remained unpaid a cost recovery action was
filed on July 23, 1986 in the United States District court for the Middle
District of North Carolina. The complaint named the following primary
defendants »
1. Dorothy Macon
2.
3. ttirf«x Dockery
4. Jfeha C. Dockery
5. C«» Oil Distributor inc.
6. crown cork and seal Co. inc.
7. ACS* Nameplate k Mfg., inc.
8. Carolina Aluminum Products Distributing Co.
9. Clark Equipment Co.
In the complaint, Macon and the Dockery 's were named as owners, c&M oil
Distributors was named as an operator, and the remaining defendants were named
as Generators .
18
-------
M&COH/DOCKERI ROD
During th* court* of th* litigation, third-party claims were filed by five of
the primary defendants against certain generators and transporters:
1. Jaws Hast* oil (James)
2. Pride-Trimble corporation (Pride)
3. Union Carbide Corporation (Union)
4. Carolina Power and Light Co. (CPL)
5. B.W. Mitchum Trucking (Trucking)
in 1987, EPA sent notice letters to the PRPs requesting that they conduct a
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for the Site. The notice
letters also informed the PRPs of their potential liability for past costs. On
April 14, 1988, EPA entered into an Administrative Order on consent wherein two
of the PRPs, Clark Equipment Company and crown Cork and Seal Company, agreed to
perform the RI/7S.
In 1989, the 1986 ..cost recovery litigation was settled via. a consent Decree for
past costs involving all ten primary defendants and several third party
defendants. The primary defendants, except for the Dockery's, and certain
third-party defendants (Pride, Union, James, Hitchua, and CPL) jointly agreed
to reimburse the United States for the majority of past costs. In exchange for
access to the Dockery property, the United states agreed to dismiss its case
for past costs against the Dockery's.
The total costs for the Site as of September 30, 1990 are $1,853,577.30. EPA
collected one hundred percent of past costs, for the removal ($1,853,100) from
the settling defendants. In January 1991, EPA sent a demand letter and
supporting documentation to Clark Equipment and Crown Cork and seal, (the
defendants who agreed to undertake the RI/FS) for the 1989 costs, since EPA
did not conduct the RI/FS at the site, EPA'a costs basically involved oversight
costs. The 1989 costs totaling $128,080.11 were paid by the above named
defendants. The 1990- costs total $140,379.19.
19
-------
teao
Pursuant to CEKCLA $S 113(K) (2) (B) (i-v> and 117, the RX/FS Report and the
Proposed Plan for the Macon/oockery site were released to the public for
comment on July 25, 1991. These two documents were made available to the
public in the administrative record located in an information repository
maintained at the SPA Docket Room in Region IV and at the Leath Memorial
Library in Rockingham, North Carolina. The notice of availability for these
documents was published in the Richmond county Journal on July 25, 1991. A
public comment period on the documents was held from July 25, 1991, to August
23, 1991. In addition a public meeting was held on August 6, 1991. At this
meeting, representatives from EPA answered questions about problems at the site
and the remedial alternatives under consideration.
The public comment period was extended an additional 30 days in response to a
request for an extension dated August 19, 1991 received from the PRPs. This
extension is in accordance with the National contingency Plan, C.F.R.
S 300.430(f)(3)(i)
-------
been identified at this site.
21
-------
The RI at the Macon/Dockery site found that no uniform vertical or horizontal
distribution of the residual chemicals is apparent. Instead, chemical
residuals in soil and ground water appear to be concentrated in localized areas
related to former storage activities (lagoon waste and drum storage) .
PCBs and pesticides are not chemicals of concern at the Site, chemicals of
interest include selected volatile and semi -volatile* organic compounds and
inorganic compounds. A summary of matrices and contaminants for the
Macon/Dockery site is presented in Table 4.
Previous removal actions by the U.S. EPA have significantly reduced or
eliminated the concentrations of contaminants in potential source areas (soils)
and. therefore have reduced any impact to receptor areas (e.g., surface water,
sediment, ground water) .
a. surface) soil*
Macon site
Analytical data for surface soils collected from the Kacon Site indicate that
residual chemicals correlate well with either (a) isolated occurrences of
disposed material and chemicals or (b) waste materials associated with known
disposal areas (lagoons) as opposed to widespread areas of surface and shallow
subsurface disposal, chemical analyses of 30 surface soil samples detected the
presence of 35 Target compound List (TCL; organics) compounds at the Upper and
Lower Macon Site (Tables S and 6). These constituents included 3 acid
extractable compounds ( semi-volatiles) , 22 base/neutral extractable compounds
(also semi-volatiles ), one pesticide, and 9 volatile organic compounds
(volatiles). The majority of compounds detected in surface soils were
polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), a subset of the base/neutral extractable
only a single pesticide was detected at the site. Oieldzin (a pesticide) was
reported at 22 ug/kg in only one sample. This sample is believed to represent
contamination transport of dieldrin from an adjacent residence (about 400 feet
upwind) and not frca the site.
The detected "ergs* &a*lyte List (TAL; inorganics) constituents at the Macon
site (llppsjri Table 7, Lower; Table 8) generally occur in concentrations less
than thofev reported for typical background inorganics data for surface soils
typical of the area.
22
-------
(l able * Sununaiy ul Miicon/Dockeiy Site ConUiininanjs by Maliu _
AIM
Volatile
Organic
Compounds
MaconSile _
Suiiaco Sui
Vaduse Zone Soils (a)
GioundWatei
Delected
Delected
Delected
Not Delected
Detected (g)
pockety Site ___
Suilacu Suit _
Vaduso Zuiio Soils (a) _
GiuundWuloi __
Suilacu Watoi _
Sediments
Nut Delected
Delected
Delected
Not Detected
Delected (b)
Semivolalile
Oiganic
Compounds
(B/N/As)
Delected
Delected
Detected (c)
Nol Delected
Not Detected (d)
Nut Delected
Detected
Noi Detected (d)
Not Delected
Nol Detected (d)
Pesticides
and PCBs
Nol Detected (e)
Nol Detected
Nol Delected
Nol Delected
Nol Detected
Nol Delected
Nol Oelecied
Nol Delected
Nol Detected
Not Delected
Inoiganict
(Meials. Se.
& Cyanide)
Slightly Elevated
Slightly Elevated
Slightly Elevated (1)
Slightly Elevated (1)
Slightly Elevated
Backgiuund Levels
Slightly Elevated
Slightly Elevated (1)
Slightly Elevated (1)
Backgiound Levels
B/N/As = Base/NeuiiaUAqtd Exliaciable Coin|ioiiiid&
PCBs - PolyclMoiiiiaied Biphenyls
Se • Selenium (a non-metallic element)
a • Detected compounds weie piinuuily in lest pits associated with loimer waste
disposal lagoons wlule soil boiings data weie genet ally ai backgiound levels.
b - Clilmoloiin was Ilia only volatile; concenlialion was liom 2-3 ug/kg J (estimated value).
c • Isopltoione was Ilia only delected semivolalile.
d • SoinivolaiUes weie UHCkided as potential contaminants ol concern since compounds weie
identified in only one sample and had a * J* (estimated value) qualiliei
e • Oiekhin was detected in one sample al 22 ug/kg but attiibuted to local pesticide application on sampling day.
I - Elevated inoiganic levels aie likely totaled to tuibidity in samples.
g •> Acetone and chloioloiin only; maximum acetone and chlofoloim concenliations weie in the
Mucon Pond sediment al 200 and 9J ug/ky. uisjteclively
-------
Tabit s
Summary of Comtltuam Detections
Macon/Oockary Hf
Upper Macon SIM
Surface Soil Sample*
Organic* Analytical Roaulta
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
P
V
V
V
V
V
y
•v
Chemical
Benzole acid
Pontachlorophanol
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Anthracana
Benzo(a)anthracane
Benzo(a)pyrene
Banzo(b)fluoranthena
Benzo(g.h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phtha!ate
Chrysana
Dibanzofuran
Oibanzo(a.h)anthracana
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Oi-n-octyl phthalate
Fluoranthana
Fluorana
IndenoO ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorona
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene ...
Pyrano -. -
Oialdrin
Acatona
Chloroform
Ethytbaroana
Mathyiafia) vMonov
Tatrachlatoathana
Toluanafe
Xylanaa (Total)
Frequency of
Detection*
1/23
1/23
2/23
1/23
3/23
3/23
2/23
2/23
2/23
2/23
12/23*
3/23
1/23
1/23
6/23
1/23
2/23
1/23
2/23
1/23
1/23
3/23
2/23
1/23
1/23*
6/23
1/23 -
2/23* "
1/23
3/23
2/23
Contract Required
Quantitation Limits
(ua/ka)
1600
330
330
330
330
16.0
10
5
5
5
5
Range
of Detected
Concentrations
(ua/ka)
140
3700
240-3400
210
67-1200
140-570
120-410
170-410
75-180
170-320
46-4700
150-570
170
43
42-140
470
260-1100
250
73-200
45
430
230-1200
230-690
22
240
1-5
7
1 10-610
2
2-200000
34-1600
Kay: A-Acid Extractablaa
B-Base/Neutral Extractablas
P-Pesticides
V-Volatila Organics
••Verified Laboratory Contamination Not Included
24
-------
Tabla s
Summary of Conatltuant Detections
llacon/Oocfcafy Hi
Lower llaeen 8Ma>
Surfaea SeU Satnpiaa
Organiea Analytical Raaulta
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
• B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
V
V
V
V
Chemical
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
Benzoic acid
Pentachtorophenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h.i)parylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chrysene
Di-n-butylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
lndeno(i.2.3-cd)pyrene
Isophorona
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrana .
1,1,1-Tricnlo/oathMtf. ,
1,1-Oichloroethana
Chloroform
Toluana
Frequency of
Detection*
1/7
1/7
2/7
2/7
2/7
1/7
2/7
2/7
2/7
2/7
2/7
7/7
3/7
1/7*
3/7
1/7
2/7
1/7
1/7
3/7
3/7
1/7
1/7
2/7
1/7
Contract Required
Quantitation Limits
(Ufl/kQ)
1600
1600
330
330
330
330
.- 5
5
5
5
Range
of Detected
Concentrations
(ua/ka)
560
45
120-2800
68-270
84-530
M * A
260
81-490
130-530
120-610
79-200
120-610
55*2800
48-640
190-1200
40-800
320
64-160
250
360
49-1 400
69-1100
470
1400
1 -2
880
Key: A-Add
B-BaafMMral Extractable$
v-Voia*» Orgajiica
•-Verffiad .Laboratory Contamination Not Included
25
-------
Table 7
Summary of Conotltuont Detections
Macon/Dockofy «
Upper Hacon til*
Surfaco Soil Sample*
Inorganics Analytical Raaults
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Chemical
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Vanadium
Zinc
Frequency of
Detection
23/23
19/23
23/23
23/23
4/23
23/23
23/23
23/23
23/23
23/23
23/23
23/23
23/23
7A23
8/23
6/23
1/23
23/23
23/23
Contract Required
Instrument
Detection Limits
(UQ/L)
200
10
200
5
5
5000
10
50
25
100
3
5000
15
0.2
40
5000
5
50
20
Range
of Detected
Concentrations
(mg/kg)
10300-26200
1.9-5.8
21.1-169
0.43-2.3
1.2-1.8
115-649
1.8-38.8
1.9-27.7
3.0-197
9100-48700
6.4-75.6
172-511
75.3-854
0.12-0.29
8.0-1 8.0
501-765
0.8
17.4-70.5
12.6-122
Key: M-Metals
26
-------
Tiblt 8
Summa/Y of Cohatltuant Detections
Macon/Oockary HI
Lower Macon Stta
Surface Soil Sample*
Inorganics Analytical Results
Chemical
M Aluminum
M Antimony
M Arsenic
M Barium
M Beryllium
M Cadmium
M Calcium
M Chromium
M Cobalt
M Copper
M Iron
M Lead
M Magnesium
M Manganese
M Mercury
M Nickel
M Potassium
M Vanadium
M Zinc
C Cyanide
Frequency of
Detection
7/7
1/7
7/7
7/7
5/7
4/7
7/7
7/7
6/7
7/7
7/7
7/7
7/7
7/7
2/7
3/7
4/7
7/7
7/7
1/7
Contract Required
Instrument
Detection Limits
(liQ/U
200
60
10
200
5
5
5000
10
50
25
100
3
5000
15
0.2
40
5000
50
20
10
Range
of Detected
Concentrations
(mo/kg)
7390-.240QO
9.8
0.88-3.9
28.7-61.5
0.22-0.38
1.1-1.7
29.1-6990
11.6-46.9
1.3-8.3
3.7-16.8
5870-57400
6.8-25.9
182-716
62.0-140
0.25-0.32
8.88-22.3
488-1010
1 1.5-104
1 1 .8-88.9
1.2
Key: M-Metals
27
-------
Dockery site
Detected TO. constituents among the Dockery site surface soil samples included
di-n-butyl phthalate, acetone, and me thylane chloride. However, these sample
concentrations sewn to indicate laboratory contamination, consequently,
analytical data for surface soils collected from the Doc leery site do not
indicate the presence of TCL chemicals.
The detected TAL constituents at the Dockery Site, surface soil (Tables 9 and
10) generally occur at background concentrations (Table 11). No TAL
constituents were detected at significant concentrations in the Dockery site
surface soil samples.
b. gjft^|pse Zone Soils
Test pits and soil borings (including borings advanced for monitoring well
installation) were employed to directly observe and sample waste materials and
impacted vadose zone soils in suspect areas.
Test pits were excavated at former lagoons at the Site and were generally
excavated to a depth of 10 to 13 feet below the ground surface. This was also
below the depth of visually determined changes in soil strata caused by
previous Site activities. Organic analytical data for the Macon site test pit
samples (Tables 12 and 13) indicate that volatilea are the predominant TCL
constituents in vadose soils underlying the former waste lagoons, organics
data (Table IS) for the Lower Dockery site test pit (no test pit at the Upper
Dockery Site) indicate low levels of primarily volatile organic compounds.
inorganic data (TAL parameters) for the test pits are provided in Tables 14
through 16.
Soil borings were also drilled at the site. Soil samples were collected from
borings generally at 15-17 feet and 25-27 feet below the land surface.
Consequently, samples from soil borings advanced through former lagoons were
collected beneath1 th* bottom of the former lagoons. Soil borings samples were
also collected as>part of the monitoring well installations.
Analytical data from soil boring vadose zone samples (Tables 17 through 24)
substantiate conclusions developed upon review of test pit samples. Elevated
concentrations of TCL constituents in vadose zone soils are associated with
fonwt vssts s*«rage lagoon areas. Detected TCL constituents generally
correspond^ tb'l&e''types of materials reportedly removed by the U.S. EPA
clean-up la the former lagoon storage areas.
Detected TAL constituents in soil boring samples correspond to those reported
for the test pit soils. Table 25 compares maximum vadose zone inorganic
concentrations with Site control data. For ease of comparison, vadose soils
have been grouped into 6 areas based on the close proximity of certain former
lagoons.
28
-------
Table 9
Summary of Constituent Detections
UaconiDockery Kf
Upp«r Docfcery Site
Surface Soli tamp lee
Inorganics Analytical Results
Contract Required
Instrument
Range
of Detected
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Chemical
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
-Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Vanadium
Zinc
Frequency of
Detection
5/5
5/5
5/5
5/5
5/5
5/5
5/5
5/5
5/5
5/5
5/5
5/5
3/5
5/5
5/5
5/5
5/5
Detection Limits
(iig/L)
200
10
200
5
5000
10
50
25
100
3
5000
15
0.2
40
5000
50
20
Concentrations
(ma/kg)
10300-14800
1.4-3.8
34.2-71.0
0.38-0.85
137-201
9.0-13.3
4.5-7.5
4.1-7.8
7650-11500
5.4-17.5
209-316
310-633
0.15-0.16
9.5-16.2
336-436
17.6-24.8
11.3-27.2
Key: M-Metals
Note: Di-n-butyl phthalate. acetone, and methylene chloride were verified laboratory
contaminants in surface soil at me Upper Dockery Site. No other organics were detected.
29
-------
Tabla 10
Summary of Conttituant Detections
Maeon/Oockofy In
Lower'Dockety SHo
Surface SoU Samples
inorganics Analytical Results
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Chemical
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
-Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Vanadium
Zinc
Frequency of
Detection
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
1/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
1/2-
1/2
2(2
212
212
Contract Required
Instrument
Detection Limits
(uo/U
200
10
200
5
5000
10
50
25
100
3
5000
15
0.2
40
5000
50
20
Range
of Detected
Concentrations
(mo/ka)
4090-16400
0.80-3.0
42.9-63.8
0.52-1.3
190-433
20.9
4.8-23.7
3.9-17.1
4790-19800
3.6-7.1
187-633
108-460
0.17
34.8
203-774
8.1-48.9
11.2-74.:
Key: M-Metals
Note Acatona and mathylana chloride were verified laboratory contaminants in surface soil
at the Lower Dockary Sits. No other organics were detected.
30
-------
TabU 11 Summary of Site and Typical Inorganics
inorganic
Aluminum
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Arsenic
Barium
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Calcium
Calcium
Chromium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Copper
Iron
Iron
Lead
Lead
Magnesium
Magnesium
Manganese
Manganese
Mercury
Mercury
Nickel
Nickel
Potassium
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
vanadium
Zinc
Zinc
Location
M/OControK")
SRS
National
M/0 Control
SRS
M/0 Control
SRS
M/0 Control
SRS
Southern U.S.
SRS
M/D Control
M/0 Control
SRS
M/0 Control
M/0 Control
SRS
M/D Control
SRS
M/D Control
SRS
M/D Control
SRS
M/D Control
SRS
M/0 Control
SRS
M/D Control
SRS
M/0 Control
SRS
National
Global
SRS
Global
M/0 Control
M/0 Control
SRS
Data for Surface Soils
Number of Arithmetic
Samples Mean (ppm)
9
31
354
9
3
9
3
9
31
1230
4
9
9
31
9
9
31
9
31
9
31
9
31
9
31
9
28
9
NO Data
9
32
1267
No Data
31
No Data
9
9
31
15.100
8.239
0.66
2.95
2.7
52.0
10.4
0.76
<1.0
0.15
88
230
14.4
26.7
7.9
6.0
<2.0
13.352
22.250
7.3
"3.21
340
70.2
394
38.7
0.15
"0.201
15.9
"2.12
445
61.4
0.39
0.05
79
0.7
- 31
24.3
"2.41
Range
(Dcxrrt Reference ;
4090-26.000
2,430-26.210
<1-8.8
0.80-4.7
2.6-2.8
34.2-71
9.7-12.2
0.44-1.3
<1. 0-0.0
0.03-0.44
26-220
137-433
9.0-20.9
11.3-54.9
4.8-23.7
3.9-17.1
<2.0-<2.0
4790-20,900
5015-43.685
3.6-17.5
<2-7.2
187-633
28-167
108-633
8.0-249
0.12-0.17
<0.2-0.21
9.5-34.8
<2.0-4.0
203-774
40-134
<0.1-4.3
0.01-5
70-124
No Data
8.1-49.7
11.2-74.3
<1 .0-6.6
1
2
3 !
1 i
2
. 1
2
1
2
4
5
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
6
2
7
1
1
2
• MfteanJBMfcarv fU/D1 central samnlas ara SL-01 SL-02. and SL-31 tnrouoh SL-37.
* * Average* were calculated using less than detection limits as if they were equal
to the detection limn (e.g.. <2.0 - 2.0)
Ref. 1: Sirrine (1991) Ret 5: Bergren et a!. (1991)
Ref. 2: Rckett (1985) Ref. 6: Lindsay (1979)
Ref. 3: Shacklene & Boemgen (1984) Ref. 7: Merck (1989)
Ref. 4: Hutchinson & Meema (1987) 4/19/91, METALS. MO
31
-------
Table 12
Summary of CenaHtuent Detections
Mecon/Dockery IV
Upper Maeon Stt»
T«tt Pit SamplM
Organic* Analytical Reault*
A
B
B
B
B
8
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
V
V
V
V
V
y
V
Chemical
Benzoic acid
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Butybenzyl phthalate
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
IndenoO ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
1 , 1 ,2.2-Tetrachloroethane
Acetone
Ethylbenzene
Mttnylene chloride, _,*.
Tetrachlofoeihene
Toluene
Xylenes (Total)
Frequency of
Detection*
1/9
5/9
2/9
1/9
2/9
3/9
3/9
4/9
2/9
4/9
7/9
1/9
7/9-
1/9
6/-9
7/9
2/9
1/9
7/9
8/9
8/9
1/9
4/9'
4/9
2/9'
2/9
5/9 .
4/3
Contract Required
Quantitation Limits
(ua/ko)
1600
330
330
330
330
330
5
10
5
5
5
Range
of Detected
Concentrations
(uq/kq)
98
260-12000
45-180
120
67-100
110-350
100-260
120-470
82-110
120-470
97-2900
38-380
84-600
63
100-650
43-880
74-120
810
65-4500
110-1500
97-730
160
11-770
1-240
340-480
4-230
5-4600
7-750
•Key: A-Acid Extractables
B- Base/Neutral Extractables
V-Volatile Organic*
•-Verified Laboratory Contamination Not Included
32
-------
Table 13
Summary of Constituent Detections
Maeon/orockery Ri
Lower Maeon SIM
Teat Pit Sample*
Organic* Analytical Rasults
Chemical
A Benzole acid
B 2-Methylnaphthalene
B Acenaphthene
B Acanaphthylene,
B Anthracene
B Benzo(a)anthracana -
B Benzo(a)pyrene
B Benzo(b)fluoranthene
B Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
B Benzo(k)fluoranthene
B bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
B Chrysene
B Oibenzofuran
B Dibenzo(a.h) anthracene
B Di-n-butyl phthalate
B Ruoranthene
B Pluorene
B IndenoO ,2,3-cd)pyrene
B Naphthalene
B Phenanthrene
B Pyrene
V 1,1,1-Trichloroethana
V 1,1-Dichloroethane
V i,2-Dichloroethene(Total)
V Acetone .. .._ :,1S
V Benzene
V Ethytoenzene
V Methytea* cMoride
. V Styren*-
V TetracMOfOtttMne *
-' V Toluene
V Trichloroethene
V Xylenes (Total)
Frequency of
Detection*
1/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
1/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
1/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1 /2*
1/2
1/2
1/2'
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
Contract Required
Quantitation Limits
(uo/ka)
1600
330
330
330
330
5
5
S
10
5
5
5
5
5
Range
of Detected
Concentrations
(ua/ko)
5300
10000-14000
330-31000
5200-310000
2300-160000
3000-150000
4100-140000
3500-120000
1300-60000
3500-120000
11000
3700-140000
320-18000
640-30000
3200
4700-200000
3300-250000
930-47000
18000-3100000
11000-1300000
7300-410000
39
110
10
120
25000
8600
20
12000
48
110000
5
23000
Key: A-Ackl Extractables
B-Base/Neutral Extractables
V-Volatile Organic*
•-Verified Laboratory Contamination Not included
33
-------
Table i*
Summary of Constituent Dtttctions
Macon/Docfcery HI
Lower Doekory SK*
Test Pit Samplsa
Organic* and Inorganics Analytical Results
Chemical
Organies (ng/kg)
B bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
B Phenanthrene
V 1.1,1-Trichloroethane
V i,i-Dichloroethane
V 2-Butanone
V Acetone
V Benzene
V Ethylbenzene
V Toluene
V Xylenes (Total)
Inorganics (mg/kg)
M Aluminum
M Arsenic
M Barium
M Beryllium
M Calcium
M Chromium
M Cobalt
M Copper
M Iron
M Lead
M Magnesium
M Manganese
M Nickel
M Vanadium
M Zinc
Frequency of
Detection
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1 /1
1 /1
1 /1
1/1
1 /1
1/1
1 M
1 M
1 /1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1 -
* t *
i / i
Contract Required
Instrument
Detection Limits
(UQ/U
(ug/kg)
5
5
10
10
5
5
(u.g/L)
200
10
200
S
5000
10
50
25
100
3
5000
15
40
50
20
Range
of Detected
Concentrations
(mg/kg^
1* f\ f\
400
M ^ A
470
32
26
54
720
8
10
8^
7
53
11 100
1.7
22.5
0.65
225
85.7
8.4
27.8
31900
6.1
400
134
23.5
1 04
27.2
'Key: B-Base/Neutral Extractables
V-Volatile Organies
M-Metals
34
-------
Table is
Summary of Copttituent Detections
MacorwOockary Ml
Upper liaeen Sft»
Test Pit Sample*
Inorganics Analytical Rasults
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
•»l
M
• M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Chemical
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsanic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Frequency of
Detection
9/9
2/9
9/9
9/9
3/9
7/9
9/9
9/9
9/9
9/9
9/9
9/9
9/9
9/9
2/9
4/9
9/9
2/9
1/9
4/9
3/9
9/9
9/9
Contract Required
Instrument
Detection Limits
(UQ/U
200
60
10
200
5
5
5000
10
50
25
100
3
5000
15
0.2
40
5000
5
10
5000
10
50
20
Range
of Detected
Concentrations
(ma/ka)
6410-26300
7.0-7.4
1.3-4.5
11.5-80.2
0.62-3.1
1.9-29.8
58-2870
7.8-35.7
3.4-18.2
5.6-165
4430-25300
7.4-55.9
399-727
58.7-229
0.14-0.16
11.3-35.6
396-1540
0.45-0.74
1
350-925
0.46-0.58
17.4-67.3
31.2-137
Key: M-Metala
35
-------
Tablt 16
Summary of Constttuant Detections
Macon/Dockary fir
Lower feacon SH»
Test Pit Samplaa
inorganics Analytical Results
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
C
Chemical
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
Frequency of
Detection
2/2
2/2
2/2
1/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
1/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
1/2-
2/2
2/2
1/2
Contract Required
Instrument
Detection Limits
(ILO/L)
200
10
200
5
5000
10
50
25
100
3
5000
15
5000
50
20
10
Range
of Detected
Concentrations
(mo/ka)
6230-15000
.6-1 .7
16.7-30.4
.9
241-4500
11.3-12.8
0.92-2.3
17.6
13100-13600
3.4-33.4
206-395
39.5-51.2
577
37.4-39.0
27.2-54.2
22.4
Key: M-Metals
C-Cyanide
36
-------
Tablt * 1
Summary of Constituent Detections
Macon/Dockety W
Upper Uaeon Ma
Soil Boring Samples
Organic* Analytical Results
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
." V
V
.' V
V
V
V
Chemical
2.4,5-Trichlorophenol
4-Methylphenol
Benzole acid
Phenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
8enzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Chrysene
Di-n-butylphthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Oibenzofuran
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene.
1,1-Oichloroethane
1 ,2-Oichloroethene(Total)
2-Butanone
2-Hexanone
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Acetone
Benzene)
Chlorofam
EthyfetflMM
MathytoM chloride
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Xvlenes(Total)
Frequency of
Detection*
1/18
1/18
2/18
4/18
4/18
2/18
1/18
2/18
2/18
2/18
2/18
2/18
8/18*
1/18
3/18
2/18
1/-18
1/18
3/18
4/18
4/18
5/18
3/18
2/18
4/18
7/18*
1/18
3/18
2/18*
2/18 .
1/18
3/18
1/18'
5/18
4/18
2/18
4/18
Contract Required
Quantitation Limits
(UQ/kQ)
1600
330
1600
330
330
330
330
•v
330
5
5
10
10
10
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
Range
of Detected
Concentrations
(UQ/kQ)
61
39
43-92
82-3000
130-43000
780-1600
51
69-150
66-260
50-160
61-270
61-230
87-920
1100
71-490
52-180
460
1500
82-1300
86-1400
53-22000
51-4700
170-1400
4-5
4-51
3-16000
5
180-4900
3100-6100
1-2
2
60-210
450
2-31000
120-9600
5-49
2-1500
Key: A-Acid Extraetables
B- Base/Neutral Extraetables
V-Volatile Organlcs
•-Verified Laboratory Contamination Not Included
37
-------
Table 18
Summary of Constituent Detections
Macon/Oockery Rl
Lower llaeen 8Ma>
Soil Boring 8 ample •
Organic* Analytical Results
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
. B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
V
V
V
V
V
Chemical
Benzole acid
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
-Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g.h.i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chrysene
Di-n-butylphthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
2-Butanone
Acetone
Ethylbenzene
Methylene chloride
Xylenet(Totml)
Frequency of
Detection*
1/4
2/4
1/4
2/4
2/4
2/4
2/4
2/4
2/4
2/4
1/4
2/4
1 /4
1/4
2/4
2/4
2/4
2/4
2/4
2/4
2/4
3/4*
2/4*
1/4
1 /4*
1 /4
Contract Required
Quantitation Limits
fun/kg)
1600
330
330
330
330
10
10
5
Range
of Detected
Concentrations
(lig/kg)
160
250-750
87
320-1800
220-570
150-920
530-2100
190-2200
330-1000
240-2200
66
220-1300
43
190
100-240
240-1300
250-820
300-730
130-650
630-1400
460-2800
8-27
340-3500
1
240
3
Kev: A-Acid Ixtractable*
B-Base/Neotral Extractables
V-Volatile Organics
••Verified Laboratory Contamination Not included
38
-------
Tibia 19
Summary of Constituent Detections
Itacon/Ooctefy IU
Upper Dockary Sit*
Soil Boring SamplM
Organic* Analytical Results
Contract Required
Range
of Detected
A
A
A
B
B-
B
B
B
B
B
Chemical
4-Methylphenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Acenaphthene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether
Isophorone
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Frequency of Quantitation Limits
Detection* (ug/ko)
2/5
1/5
2/5
1/5
1/5'
1/5'
1/5
1/5
1/5
1/5
330
330
330
330
330
Concentrations
(UQ/*Q)
60-76
1-630
6-16000
5000
3000
500
540
460
530
390
.Key: A-Acid Extractables
B-Base/Neutral Extractables
••Verified Laboratory Contamination Not Included
39
-------
Table 20
Summary of Constituent Detections
Macon/Oockofy III
Upp«r Uaeon 3tt»
Soil Boring Samples
Inorganics Analytical Results
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
• M
M
M
M
M
M
Chemical
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Contract Required
Instrument
Frequency of Detection Limits
Detection (ua/L)
20/20
1/20
9/20
20/20
20/20
20/20
20/20
20/20
20/20
20/20
20/20
20/20
20/20
1/20
11/20
5/20
20/20
20/20
20/20
200
60
10
200
5
5000
10
50
25
100
3
5000
15
0.2
40
5000
5000
50
20
Range
of Detected
Concentrations
(mg/kq)
16100-72500
13.8
0.52-3.1
19.3-337
0.3-4.1
41.8-742
7.8-462
2-1 19
8.6-176
22600-112000
2.3-61.9
116-6110
21-1810
04 £
.1 5
0.13-263
806-6110
109-815
42.3-253
18-120
Key: M-Metals
40
-------
Tablt 21
Summary of Constituent Detections
Macon/Ooctory IU
Lower Maeen Slla
Soil Boring Samptea
Inorganics Analytical Results
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Chemical
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Frequency of
Detection
4/4
4/4
4/4
3/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
3/4'
4/4
4/4
Contract Required
Instrument
Detection Limits
(uo/L)
200
10
200
5
5000
10
50
25
100
3
5000
15
5000
50
20
Range
of Detected
Concentrations
(mq/kq)
5420-14900
0. 77-2. 3
1 1.4-34
0.26-0.39
36-668
9.9-39.2
1 .2-1 0
3.3-1 1
7890-24800
1.4-12.4
71.8-471
19.2-132
106-131
12.2-42.2
7.9-18.5
Key: M-Metals
41
-------
Table 22
Summary of Constituent Detections
MaeofWOocfcofy Ml
Upper Dockary «Ke
Soil Boring Samples
Inorganics Analytical Results
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Chemical
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Frequency of
Detection
5/5
3/5
5/5
3/5
5/5
5/5
5/5
5/5
5/5
5/5
5/5
5/5
2/5
1/5
1./5
5/5
5/5
5/5
Contract Required
Instrument
Detection Limits
(uo/U
200
10
200
5
5000
10
50
25
100
3
5000
15
40
5000
5
5000
50
20
Range
of Detected
Concentrations
(ma/ka)
6950-98900
0.66-4.4
4.3-2990
0.51-6.5
63.4-2400
23.9-1970
1 .3-326
5.7-193
10500-579000
5.0-58.1
64.6-4230
22.2-19000
20.0-252
4020
4.4
91.4-620
25.1-672
5.6-106
Key: M-Metals
42
-------
Tablt 23
Summary of Constituent Defections
Uacon/bockafy III
Macon Sit*
Monitoring We* Soil Boring Samplts
Organic* and Inorganic* Analytical Result*
Chemical
Organic* (ug/kg)
3 bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
B Oi-n-octyl phthalate
V 2-Butanone
V Acetone
V Methylene chloride
Inorganic* (mg/kg)
M Aluminum
M Antimony
M Arsenic
M Barium
M Beryllium
• M Cadmium
M Calcium
M Chromium
M Cobalt
M Copper
M Iron
M Lead
M Magnesium
M Manganese
M Nickel
M Potassium
M Sodium
M vanadium
M Zinc
Frequency of
Detection*
4/14
2/14
7/14
8/14*
6/14*
14/14
2/1 4
8/1 4
14/14
11/14
1/14
14/14
14/14
14/14
11/14
14/14
14/14
14/14
14/14
5/14
7/14
8/14
14/14
.14/14
Contract Required
Quantitation Limits
(uo/kg)
10
10
s
200
60
10
200
5
5
5000
10
50
25
100
3
5000
15
40
5000
5000
50
20
Range
of Detected
Concentrations
51-110
60-62
1 -9
19-140
6-55
3850-76600
9-16.3
0.58-4.2
10.3-256
0.35-4.2
1.3
6.5-557
4.1-508
1.0-90.8
1.9-214
5230-118000
2.4-17.2
106-3560
15.2-1270
1 1.9-382
583-2330
117-232
9.5-257
9.4-84.4
Key: B-BaseVNtutrtl Extractables
V-VolatNe Organic*
M-Metals
••Verified Laboratory Contamination Not Included
43
-------
Tabla 24
Summary of Constituent Detections
Macon/Doekafy ftl
Dockery Sit*
Monitoring Wall Soil Boring Samples
Organlcs and Inorganics Analytical Results
Chemical
Organics (no/kg)
A 2-Methylphenol
B bis(2-Ethy!hexyl)phthalate
B Di-n-butyl phthalate
B Diethyl phthalate
B Dimethyl phthalate
V 2-Butanone
V 2-Hexanone
V 4-Methyl-2-pentanone
V Acetone
V Methylene chloride
Inorganics (mg/kg)
M Aluminum
M Arsenic
M Barium
M Beryllium
M Calcium
M Chromium
M Cobalt
M Copper
M Iron
M Lead
M Magnesium
M Manganese
M Nickel
M Sodium
M Vanadium _
M Zinc . „.'*"" "
.'. *t.fCtQr
Frequency of
Detection*
1/5
3/5
1/5
2/5
2/5
2/5
1/5
2/5
5/5
4/5'
5/5
2^5
5/5
4/5
5/5
5/5
5/5
5/5
5/5
4/5
5/5
5/5
1/5
4/5
5/5
5/5
Contract Required
Quantitation Limits
fua/kq)
330
330
10
10
10
10
5
200
10
200
5
5000
10
50
25
100
3
5000
15
40
5000
50
20
Range
of Detected
Concentrations
97
88-620
42
3800-9500
1500-1600
710-4600
1
130-940
21-9200
12-33
462-0-42300
0.97-5.9
2.9-19.4
0.34-4.6
33.8-226
9.1-37.9
1.1-15.2
4.8-31.4
6140-50800
5.8-6.8
28.8-1380
19.2-42.5
32.1
92.3-145
19.1-131
5-49.7
•Key: A-Acid Extractables
B-Base/Neutral Extractables
V-Volatile Organics
M-Motals
••Verified Laboratory Contamination Not Included
44
-------
Ol
Table 25 Comparison olVadose Zone IIUM games WiihConooiDaia
MacofWOockeiy Site. Richmond County, North Caiolina
Aiithmeiic
Mean ol
Cotpfceji Conliol Conliol
Inotganic 1w*l*|>« MUdendorl Surface
(mg/kg) (SBtS-Ot-1) (8B14-01-1) SoU(a)
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
BeryNlum
Cadmium
Chiomium
CobaN
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Me«cuiy
Nickel
Selenium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
NO
1.1
19.3
0.82
NO
139
52
86
4.7
21
NO
ND
NO
ND
42.3
191
NO
2.9
28.3
0.3
NO
265
2
94
118
788
NO
013
ND
ND
1 . 43.7
24.1
066
-------
mCOH/DOCXBRT ROD
opper Macao Site
Analytical data (Tables 26 and 27) indicate that the groundwater in the
vicinity of monitoring wella MW-03 and MW-11 (Figure 2) has not been impacted
by former waate handling activities at the upper Macon site. TCL constituents
were undetected in these well samples, and detected TAL constituents are
consistent with those reported for the control sample (KW-01). Monitoring well
MW-01 contains trace concentrations of TCL constituents. The presence of these
trace compounds ia likely related to transport of residual chemicals in ground
water towards MW-01 during seasonal changes in groundwater flow.
Groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells KW-2, MW-2A, MW-5, MW-6,
MW-8, MW-8A, MW-9, MW-10, and MH-19 exhibit varying concentrations of TCL
constituents, only groundwater samples collected from wells MW-9 and MH-19
contained base/neutral/acid extractable compounds as well as volatile organic
compounds. The remaining samples contained only volatile organic compounds.
Each of the wella listed above are located directly down-gradient from areas of
past waste storage, primarily lagoons. The presence of residual chemicals in
these wells is likely due to the close proximity of storage lagoon areas and
appropriate placement of the wells for intercepting residual chemicals in
ground water moving away from the source areas.
In general, groundwater samples which contained TAL metals at concentrations
above those reported for the control sample (MW-Olj were collected from
monitoring wella KH-5, MH-6, MW-7, MH-8, MW-8A, MW-9, MW-10, and MW-19.
Lower Macon site
Analytical data for lower Macon Site monitoring wells (Table 28) indicate the
presence of residual TCL constituents. As with the majority of upper Macon
site wella, the presence of residual chemicals in wells MH-4, MN-12, KW-13, and
MW-14R (Figure 3) appear to be related to the presence and close proximity of
former waate storage areas, primarily lagoons. These wella are located
directly down-gradient of lagoon areas and serve as direct monitoring positions
for residual chemicals migrating to the northwest in ground water.
upper Dockery sit*
concentrations of TCL constituents at the upper Dockery site (Table 29) were
detected ia an area where drums had been stored. Groundwater samples collected
from monitoring wall MN-IS (Figure 3) indicated reaidual chemicals, especially
1,1,1-trioUoroethane, 1,1-dichloroethane, and 1,1-dichloroethene. Table 30
summarise)* detected TAL conatituenta. Review of aerial photographs of the site
and visual observation* during RI field activitiea indicate that the vicinity
of MW-15 was used for drum atorage. Contaminant transport modeling indicates
that the groundwater contaminant plume may extend several hundred feet
downgradient from the vicinity of MW-15.
46
-------
Tiblt 2 6
Summary of Constituent Detections
Mseon/Doeksry ftf .
Upper Maeon 8Ms
Ground Water Samples
Organies Analytical Results
A
B
B
B
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
Chemical
Benzole acid
bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Isophorone
1.1.1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1 .2-Dichloroethene(Total)
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Acetone
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Chloroethane
Ethylbenzene
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes (Total)
Frequency of
Detection*
\
1/13
1/13
5/13
2/13
10/13
1/13
7/13
8/13
2/13
7/13
1/13
3/13*
3/13
1/13
2/13
1/13
3/13
1/13*
6/13
1/13
9/13
3/13
3/13
Contract Required
Quantitation Limits
(ug/U
50
10
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
10
5
5
10
5
5
5
5
5
10
Range
of Detected
Concentrations
(uq/U
2
8
3-41
2
1-29
1
4-190
2-23
3
6-150
2
4-42
1-6
1
21-60
2
2-17
2
1 -44
7
4-290
8-510
2-9
Key: A-Acid Extractablet
B-BMe/NawtraJ Exfractables
v-voiatffr Organic*
- ••VortfiaBT Laboratory Contamination Not Included
47
-------
Ttblt 27
Summary off Constituent Defections
Macon/Dockery n
Upper ilaeen SNa
Ground-Water Samples
Inorganic* Analytical Results
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
•M
M
M
M
C
Chemical
Aluminum
Barium
Beryllium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
^rr
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
Contract Required
Instrument
Frequency of Detection Limits
Detection (ug/L)
14/14
14/14
9/14
14/14
12/14
11/14
12/14
14/14
12/14
14/14
14/14
1/14
8/14
1 1/14
14/14
12/14
14/14
1/14
200
200
5
5000
10
50
25
100
3
5000
15
0.2
40
5000
5000
50
20
10
Range
of Detected
Concentrations
(UQ/L)
1540-391000
81.5-5710
1.4-21.7
1090-25900
7-1400
5.3-388
13.0-1160
1770-640000
2.5-77.5
1030-55500
61.2-6130
Q.49
47.5-2120
1560-17600
2200-1150000
8-627
52.4-730
10.4
Key: M-Metals
C-Cyanide
48
-------
Tablt 28
Summary of Constituent Defections
MacorttOocfctry Bl
Lower iiaeon Stt»
Ground>wat*t. Sample*
Organic* and Inorganics Analytical Results
A
B
V
V
V
V
V
V
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Chemical
Benzole acid
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
"1,1-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Oichloroethene(Total)
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Aluminum
Barium
Beryllium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Contract Required
Frequency of Quantitation Limits
Detection (uQ/L)
1/4
2/4
4/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4A4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
2/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
50
5
5
5
5
5
5
200
200
5
5000
10
50
25
100
3
5000
15
40
5000
5000
50
20
Range
of Detected
Concentrations
(UQ.'U
3
7-14
3-94
3-30
2-28
2-6
2-3
2-17
8600-87700
99.5-1240
2.4-11.5
2690-16600
23.6-56.7
9.1-49.9
37.8-84
13500-108000
15.8-31.6
1470-21400
31 1-2420
50.5-52
3950-18400
4370-9560
11.5-155
75.1-347
Key: A-Acid Eatrtctables
B-Base/Meutral Extractives
V-Vol«p*v Organic*
M-MetUr
49
-------
Table 29
Summary of Constituent Detections
MacoruOockary Ml
Upper Dockafy Site
Ground-Water Samples
Organic* Analytical Results
B
B
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
y
V
• v
V
V
V
Chemical
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-octyl pntnalate
1,1,1-Trichloroetnane
1,1-Dichloroe thane
-1.1-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloroethene(Total)
Acetone
Benzene
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Xylenes (Total)
Frequency of
Detection*
1/4
1/4
3/4
1/4
3/4
1/4
2/4*
1/4
1 /4
1/4
1/4
3/4
1/4
2/4
1 /4
1/4
1/4
Contract Required
Quantitation Limits
(ua/L)
5
5
5
5
10
5
5
5
5
^
5
5
5
Range
of Detected
Concentrations
(ua/L)
10
3
4-500
26
2-640
1
8-59
1
1
1
1
1-7
2
1-2
5
3
5
Key: B-Base/Neutral Extractables
V-Volatile Organics
••Verified Laboratory Contamination Not Included
50
-------
Tablt 30
Summary of Constituent Detections
Macon/Doeksry Rl
Upper Oockery Sit*
Ground-Water Samples
Inorganics Analytical Results
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Chemical
Aluminum
Barium
Beryllium
Calcium '
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Frequency of
Detection*
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
1 /4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
Contract Required
Instrument
Quantitation Limits
(UQ/U
200
200
5
~= 5000
10
50
25
100
3
5000
15
0.2
40
5000
5000
50
20
Range
of Detected
Concentrations
(mo/Li
28700-72700
350-935
3.9-17.7
5650-17800
120-345
41.1-99.8
31.3-108
59000-127000
7.7-25.6
6600-40000
864-1900
0.3
74.6-176
8610-42700
5710-9000
81.9-222
129-528
Key: M-Metals
51
-------
M&COB/DOCKBB7 ROD
Sit«
The presence of residual chemicals (TCL and TAL constituents; Tabla 31) in
MW-16 (Lower Dockery site) appears to be related to the close proximity of the
well to Lagoon 12. MW-16 is located immediately down-gradient of Lagoon 12 and
serves as a direct monitoring position for ground water migrating away from
MW-16 (Figure 3).
Private Wells
No TCI. compounds were found in samples collected from privately-owned wells
near the site (Table 32). Detected TAX. constituents for wells PW-02 and PW-03
were within Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLS) and ranges determined from the
control sample, in well PW-04, iron exceeded the secondary MCL (483 ug/1
versus an MCL of 300 ug/L) but was less than the concentration detected in the
control sample, well PW-05 exceeded MCLs for iron and manganese. However,
these constituents were detected in concentrations less than the control
sample.
vanadium and zinc were detected in concentrations slightly exceeding the
control sample (MW-01). consequently, elevated concentrations of these two
metals are most likely attributable to natural background levels.
Cobalt, copper, magnesium, vanadium, and zinc concentrations in PW-05 exceeded
the control sample (MW-01) concentration. PW-05 is located at a slaughterhouse
facility that is hydraulically upgradient from the Site. Observed site
conditions at the slaughterhouse indicate that impact to the soil and
groundwater media are possibly due to the slaughtering operations, cleaning
practices, and disposal procedures. In summary, the site does not adversely
impact private wells.
d. Surface water
No residual TCL constituents were detected in surface water samples collected
downgradient from either the Macon site or the oockery site (Table 33). TAL
constituents (Table 33) detected in the Macon Site surface water control sample
(SW/SED-03; Figure 7) were within normal ranges for natural waters.
The surface water sample collected from the lower Macon Site pond contained
elevated concentrations of barium, calcium, magnesium, and manganese. The
surface wsfbsx results of samples collected down-gradient of the Oockery site
are essentially the sane as the results from the control sample (SW/szo-07;
Figure 7) fear TAL constituents (Table 34). The impact or residual chemical*
from the »ite to Solomon's creek is minimal.
e.
TCL constituents detected in Macon site sediment samples (Table 35) correspond
with tar or asphalt-coated wood fragments from the bridge materials (not
related to the site) that were found in the sediment sample. TCL
52
-------
Tiblt 31
Summary of Constituent Defections
Macon/Oockory M
Lower Oockary Site
Ground-Water Samples
Organles and Inorganics Analytical Results
B
V
V
V
V
V
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
' M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Chemical
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1.1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Oichloroethene
Chloroform
Trichloroethene
Aluminum
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Frequency of
Detection
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1 /1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1 /1
1 /1
1 M
1 n
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
Contract Required
Instrument
Detection Limits
(UQ/U
5
5
5
5
5
200
200
5
5
5000
10
50
25
100
3
5000
15
40
5000
5
50
20
Range
of Detected
Concentrations
(UO/L)
3
51
43
18
2
2
107000
772
3.5
5.6
30100
124
98.2
145
199000
27.7
53100
3810
164
34900
9870
356
530
/dl
Key: B-Base/Neutral Extractables
v-Volatil* Organic*
M-Meta*
53
-------
Tlblt 32
Summary of Constituent Detections
MacontOockery «
Private Well temples
Organies and Inorganics Analytical Results
B
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Chemical
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Aluminum
Barium
Calcium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Frequency of
Detection*
1/4*
4/4
4/4
4/4
1/4
3/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
3/4
1/4
4/4
2/4
4/4
Contract Required
Quantitation Limits
fuo/L)
200
200
5000
50
25
TOO
3
5000
15
5000
5000
50
20
Range
of Detected
Concentrations
(UQ/U
3
83.1-640
4.4-59.1
1440-8480
11.1
11.6-912
20.9-13300
2.4-28.2
2060-7910
4.4-89.3
3450
5260-12300
5.2-5.4
31.2-544
Key: B-Base/Neutral Extractables
M-Metals
•-Verified Laboratory Contamination Not Included
54
-------
Tibia 33
Summary of Constituent Datactlons
Macon/poekary R*
Macon Sit*
Surf act Watt* Samples
Organies and Inorganics Analytical Rtsults
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Chemical
Aluminum
Barium
Calcium
Cobalt
Copper
iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Frequency of
Detection
3/3
3/3
3/3
1/3
1/3
3/3
2/3
3/3
3/3
2/3
3/3
2/3
1/3
3/3
Contract Required
Instrument
Detection Limits
(uq/L)
200
200
5000
SO
25
100
3
5000
15
5000
5000
10
50
20
Range
of Detected
Concentrations
(uq/L)
185-293
20.8-100
1310-6370
9
18.2
1960-5120
1.6-2.3
583-2410
62.4-1250
4090-13700
4040-6480
1.4-1.6
8.3
13.6-49.5
Key: M-Metals
•- Verified laboratory contamination (methylene chloride) not included.
55
-------
LEGEND
Sample Location
Control Location
f • I.-:
:9168-SW/SED-07-1
MN .W*.«\(
' ' ' ' * \i
Macon SIt«£&'•-'. 5
9168-SW/SED-01-1/
9168-SW/SED-11-2
9168-SW/SED-12-2
N-X , •
SW/SED-02-1
9168-SW/SED-03-1
9168-SW/3ED-03-2
5/7P
y
SCALE 1:24000
CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET
Figure 7
Surface Water/Sediment
Sampling Location Map
56
-------
Tabia 34
Summary of Conatitutnt Detections
MacoftfDockary m
Dockery Slta>
Surfaeo Watar Samples
Organic* ami Inorganics Analytical Results
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
•M
M
M
Chemical
Aluminum
Barium
Beryllium
Calcium
Cobalt
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Potassium
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Frequency of
Detection*
4/4
4/4
1/4
4/4
3/4
4/4
2/4
4/4
4/4
1/4
2/4
4/4
3/4
4/4
T/4
Contract Required
Instrument
Detection Limits
(UQ/L)
200
200
5
5000
50
100
3
5000
15
0.2
5000
5000
10
50
20
Range
of Detected
Concentrations
(uo/l)
140-305
26.6-47.7
2.7
2560-4630
3.8-10.4
269-3190
1.4-1.9
1340-2390
30.3-397
0.24
4170-4920
7510-10900
1.3-1.6
2.7-3.2
63
Key: M-Metals
•-Verified laboratory contamination (methylene chloride) not included.
57
A! I
POOR QUAL
ORIGINAL
-------
Tablo 35
Summary of Constituent Dotations
Macon/Dockory fM
Maeon Slto
Sediment SareeJe*
Organies and Inorganics Analytical Results
Chemical
Organies (ug/kg)
A Benzole acid
V Acetone
V Chloroform
Inorganics (mg/kg)
M Aluminum
M Arsenic
M Barium
M Calcium
M Chromium
M Cobalt
M Iron
. M Lead
M Magnesium
M Manganese
M Potassium
M Selenium
M Vanadium
M Zinc
Contract Required
Frequency of Quantitation Limits
Detection* fug/kg)
1/3
2/3*
2/3
3/3
2/3
3/3
3/3
2/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
1/3
1/3
3/3
3/3
1600
10
5
200
10
200
5000
10
50
100
3
5000
15
5000
5
50
20
Range
of Detected
Concentrations
270
19-200
2-9
1180-19900
2.3-3.8
5.3-270
76.7-2850
9-16.7
2.5-20.9
1630-15100
2.9-40.8
213-933
8.9-405
1520
0.74
4.7-25.9
5.5-95.5
Key: A-Acid Extractablas
V-Volatile Organies
M-Metals
•-Verified Laboratory Contamination Not Included
58
-------
NfcCOV/DOOCZRT ROD
constituents were not detected in other downstream sediment samples. sediment
samples fron the Dockery site (Table 36) indicate the presence of benzoic acid
and benzo
-------
Table 36
Summary of Constituent Defections
Macon/Dockery ftt
Dockery Sit*
Sediment Sample*
Organic* and Inorganics Analytical Results
Chemical
Organic* (jig/kg)
A Benzole acid
B Benzo(a)pyrene
V 2-Butanone
V Chloroform
Inorganics (mg/kg)
M Aluminum
M Arsenic
M Barium
M Calcium
M Chromium
.M Cobalt
M Iron
• M Lead
M Magnesium
M Manganese
M Potassium
M Vanadium
M Zinc
Frequency of
Detection*
1/4
1/4
1/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
2/4
3/4
4/4
474
4/4
4/4
1/4
4/4
4/4
Contract Required
Quantitation Limits
(uo/ko)
1600
I/*
0
5
200
10
200
5000
10
50
100
3
5000
15
5000
50
20
Range
of Detected
Concentrations
150
240
2-3
1290-2310
0.63-1.4
5.6-18.9
52.0-295
2.3-3.9
1.9-3.3
1580-3870
0.93-2.9
41.3-412
17.7-108
1590
3-5.3
3.3-8.3
Key: A-Acid Extractables
B-Base/Neutral Extractables
v-Voiatile Organic*
M-M«tals
•-Verified Laboratory Contamination Not included
60
-------
-o
08
33 in
OO
T»b4> 3 7 TmteMy Cmiacmtllicii Uaditag Ploc«dm« (TCtP) RatuHt to »»• M«con Site V«M«t Sampling. Richmond County. North Cxotfta
PwwMtoi (MICAS
BiinpU tot»lion»
V«l» 1.2.9.
6.O.7.*
WMM (Solid |T«f
[SoUtU
(Tank l
|VK»l«i |OU
|T»nk l|T«*4|T*nk 6|Unk6 |T«*t |T*nk«|T*nk7lUnk7|TMk||T«*0
|o»i |oti !*•>•. loa |w*n. \o» |w*i« |o« |w«m Jon
Ion
AiMnk 7440-M-t
7440-4T-1
Mutiny 74M-4J7-*
TTM-4»-t
Mwt 7440-22-4
7I-4J-2
CMarafem 67-MV4
o-Cwwl MV46-7(nak*tl)
i»-Ot««ot
«.<-*
(m>CAM;na>fl)
IJ-OkMo
107-M-t
121-14-2
•7-
i fJ-Tt-t
im^em**** *•+**
•7-
1t7-1»-4
M
tJl
»loUlci«tolcono»«ir«»»itl»»«»d. Th«(•gulMaiyl»i«4oltaWciMol 1*200noA..
B»AMJ»totoundlnM>af>MyM«*Mdln«w*Miif>l* J . ElUmMM veto* O - M^nod iHHuMoii »m»; umftf mat «n«ty»d tm P*****! »ot o^cxd
X » Not pot^trt* to dillwmltau tituMMi MM M- *nd p-t»onw« Valu* I* «v» tout ol m-ci«w« «nd p-u»Ml lio»i»i«.
• > TCLP•«V«cl HamaM«nd •*•!•< phMM•«• cowbln«d to WMlytli•• p« Jura M. IMO66FMMM6:EPA6W-646M*hod till (TCLP)
f P • HMh P»M : : : • EMWd* TCLP ftoautatoiy L«»M NA-M - Not AMlyMd-Hatding Thn* E*cMd«d. MA-M - Not An*lyM
-------
SSSnt^ol E**nated Volumes of Materials in vats, Tankers, and Tanks at the
Macon/Oocfeafy^M. Richmond County. North Carolina
Approx.
Total
Volume of
Material
(Gallons)
Approx.
Volumetric
Percent
Solids/
Water/
5/95/0
100/0/0
2/98/0
0/0/0
100/0/0
0/50/50
0/0/100
0/0/100
0/90/10
0/90/10
0/70/30
0/60/40
0/20/80
0/0/0
0/0/0
0/0/0
0/0/0
0/0/0
0/0/0
230
Approx. Approx. Approx.
Volume Volume Volume
Water Oil Tar
(Gal.) (Gal.) (Gal.)
4370
0
0
0
-0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
780
0
0
1290
340
3030
720
1540
0
0
0
0
0
0
Note- Vohjrae ol water In tanks and vats is subject to fluctuations
since U.iuuMleU ara not entirely sealed off from precipitation.
62
-------
M&CO&/DOCX2RZ BOO
6. 8UMMART OF 8ITO BTtnm
The Risk Assessment report consists of the following sections: contaminant
identification, exposure assessment, toxicity assessment, risk
characterization, and environmental (ecological) assessment. These sections aa
written for the Hacon/Dockery Remedial Investigation/Feasibility study are
summarized below.
of
For the baseline risk assessment, each of the four areas at the site were
assessed for contamination in surface soil, groundwater, surface water (if
present), and sediment (if present), consequently, media of concern were
identified for the four areas at the site as follows: Upper Dockery-
groundwater; Lower Dockery- surface soil (including airborne particulatee ) ,
groundwater, surface water, sediments; upper Macon- surface soil .(* airborne
particulates ) , groundwater; Lower Macon- surface soil (4 airborne
particulates ) , surface water, sediment, other media determined to be of
concern were downgradient surface water (Pee Dee River) that is used by
residents of Cher aw, SC, as well as fish that might be caught from the river.
For media with sample data, exposure point concentrations were determined by
calculating a statistical upper confidence limit (UCL) value. If too few data
were available to calculate a UCL value, the maximum detected concentration was
used as the exposure point concentration. Modeling was used to determine
concentrations in fish tissue, in water withdrawn from the Pee Dee River for
the Cher aw, SC water system, and of contaminated soil particulates in air.
Exposure point concentrations are listed by medium for each of the site areas
in Table 39.
Current population* that may be exposed to site-related chemicals include
resident* living in the area surrounding the Macon/Dockery site, child-aged
trespassers, hunters and fishermen who may enter the site, and residents of
cheraw, south Carolina who consume drinking water withdrawn from the Pee Dee
River downstream from the site, since the land use of the surrounding area is
mostly rural residential, it is feasible that residents could live on the site
in the
Human sip»«nr> pathways have been identified for current and potential future
uses at the) site. The current land use scenario assumes an individual
trespasses onto the site for recreational purposes. The young child (aged 5-6)
trespasses onto the site 48 days/year; the older child (aged 6-15) trespasses
76 days/year; and the adult hunter spends 114 days/year (length of hunting
season) on the site. Exposure occurs via inhalation of particulates (stirred
up by All-Terrain-Vehicle activity) by the older child and to all age groups
63
-------
TABLE 39 - EXPOSURE POINT CONCEHTRATIOMS
UPPER DOCKERY SITE
••I In*
••fylllM
cumtm
III
II.I
lit
IIM
• •I
114
III
III
tit
II
• II
It
I*
I
t
t
LOWER DOCKERY SITE
ClMMlG.I
tot l*a*|
4«r Iva
CM»lU«
CklWllM
IMltf*****
•lck*l
il»c
l.l.l-t(l*kl*IMtk*M
l,l-»l«klMMtMM
4M M M*)
Ut/H <«•'*•! <»•'•
>*.! ' "
11
1.
11
11 4
144 14.* 1
114 ||. |
II
14
•M •«»
* | H»|/M l«-*'Ml
. tl
. Ill
> .4
1* 4-41 . *
. 14 -•
.441*
9411
•SO - M4i*»4>l
UPPER MACON SITE
LOWER MACON SITE
-o
O
OO
512°
Q
Ck*Bl»l
**•••!•
•ultia
IMf yllln*
Cfelo*IM
cytRII*
MM«*»*
MccMrv
Mlflhvl
VM*4lu>
tlM
•atbcMM*
•••WI«IWMM*«*"«
•••••(•in****
*M»lf,ll.ll**'T>*M
•MMIklflMSWtkM*
•MMlMtoUMIM*
•!•!•••
•uit-cuiiMnii
(MUIM*
Ckl«f*lM«
C«OM**
l.l.l-flWH"««t»M*
l.l-*UklMMIM»»
1,1-CUklMMIMM
m It
|»t/ll It'
Illl 0
l.l
III.O
I.I
I4»> •
• .*> 1
III
HI I
III 1
"_
"
4.t
II. t
l.t
II. I
II. I
1.4
«l •
•!•
k«l CM"' 1
« l.ll
1.4 !•••
, l.ll
*
ii.l >•>•
.11 4.41
.1 1."
1.4
II. •
4.41 >•<>
1.41 I-*1
l.4t 1-44
t.lt
I.It ' •'
4 II '•«»
l.ll
~4.4I t-ll
- ;•
..
4-41
1-44
•-44
• -•I
• -II
1-41
l-ll
• -44
• -44
• -44
••II
•-44
l«tvl
t*l«
t III l.ll l-ll
.:,! 1.41 •••!
I. II 1-41 •-«
l.ll 1-41 «-l*
l.ll !•'• •-•«
,.41 I.II 1-41
14.1
1.41 1-44
41.1
III.I
I.I
4W
Cb««lt>*l |M••• !•»»>«••*
•imt i kill ••rial t*»t
' ! - . 0m~ th**«
ktaiI-*tkglM«r>l **••
tktk*l«i«
• l.l-t(lCkl4«Mlk«a* *«•»
, l-klckl*flMtk*M !••*
, I niiikl>miki«i !*••
.l-bl«kl*MM4kM» 4-4
I -o-bwt|l ipktUitt*
•d4 Ml 1,1, >-€,«(
f»«»*«
r**t ft«kl*f Mf^te**! - -
tMMtkIM*
py(««*
tttlMM
IflCklMMlMM '« ••
••
••'Mi
• .•1
4.1*
•l.ll
14.41
,.
1.41
1.44
l.*l
!.*>
l.*l
1 41
1.4*
*.*»!
!.••
l.lll
.-
4.411
l.lll
1.411
1.911
1.114
1.14*
-
AJk 4H ••&
•«/•' | !•>•/!.) IM'h4(
4.11 »*-J
144 IMMI 114 iptt*«l
i.aa •-•* 4.4401
4.41>
1)1.4
111* ipoftdi
4.11
4.414
4.11 It I
I4.lt 11
• 1.1 ipottdi
J44 t^ondl
l.*l •-**
!.»» 4-4*
l.»4 l-l*
1.14 4-44
4.41 |-4I
• .441
1.4* •-•• -- * IBM*
4.** •-•4
4.4111
l.ll •••! 4.444
• .III
1,44*1
•• ••
..
l.ll ••*•
..
4. II •**•
4.41 •-!•
4 4411
4.4*44
-------
JOCOV/DOCKSKJ SOD
via, incidental ingestion of and dermal contact with surface soil, surface
water, and sediments, one-fourth of the fiah consumed by an adult is assumed to
be caught 10 the area. Estimated contaminant concentrations in fish in the
area nearest the site that would be fished are listed in Table 40.
The future land use scenario assumes residential development on the site.
Exposure is assumed to occur to an adult and to a child via all the pathways
listed in the current use scenario, but with daily exposure. Additionally,
this scenario assumes residential use of on site groundwater.
e . Toxi.ci.tv Aasesment
Under current EPA guidelines, the likelihood of adverse effects to occur in
humans from carcinogens and noncarcinogena are considered separately. These
are discussed below.
carcinogens
EPA uses a weight-of-evidence system to classify a chemical's potential to
cause cancer in humans. All evaluated chemicals fall into one of the following
categories: Class A- Known Human Carcinogen; Class B- Probable Human
Carcinogen- Bl means there is limited human epidemiological evidence, and B2
means there is sufficient evidence in animals and inadequate or no evidence in
humans; class c- Possible Human Carcinogen; class D- Not classifiable as to
Human carcinogenicity; and class E- Evidence of nonearcinogenicity for Humans.
Cancer Slope Factors (SFa), indicative of carcinogenic potency, are developed
by EPA's carcinogenic Assessment Group to estimate excess lifetime cancer risks
associated with exposure to potentially carcinogenic chemicals. SFs are derived
from the results of human epidemiological studies or chronic animal bioassays
to which animal-to-human extrapolation and uncertainty factors have been
applied. SFs, which are expressed in units of (mg/kg-day)"1, are multiplied
by the estimated intake of a potential carcinogen to provide an upper-bound
estimate of the excess lifetime cancer risk associated with exposure at that
intake letvel*). Zfas) term "upper-bound* refers to the conservative estimate of the
risks calculated froa the SF. This approach makes underestimation of the actual
cancer risk highly unlikely, since quantltation of dermal exposure results in
an absorbed,dose the administered dose oral SF must be adjusted accordingly.
Table 41 list*, all carcinogenic contaminants of concern along with respective
cancer classifications and slope factors.
References Doiwr (RfDs) have been developed by EPA for Indicating the potential
for adverse) health effects other than cancer. RfDs, which are expressed in
units of mg/kd-day, are estimates of chronic daily exposure for humans,
including sensitive individuals, that are thought to be free of any adverse
effects. RfDs are derived from human epidemiological data or extrapolated from
animal studies to which uncertainty factors have been applied. These
uncertainty factors help ensure that the RfDs will not underestimate the
potential for adverse noncarcinogenic effects to occur. Estimated intake of
65
-------
TABLE 40
MODELED ?ISH TISSUE CONCENTRATIONS
IN
PEE DEE RIVER AT SOLOMON'S CREEK
Chemical
Fish Tissue
Concentration
(ug/fcg)
inoroaniei
Antimony
Beryllium
chromium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
vanadium
Zinc
0.0001628
0.0893247
0.0007184
1.2938
2.295
0.0022372
0.014479801
9.195
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
0.0064752
0.0002808
0.000093
0.0000048
0.0003058
0.0000753
66
-------
TABU 41
CARCINOGENIC TOXICITY VALUES
Carcinogenic Oral ST inhalation 3?
Chemical Classification (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day)'1
Inorganics
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
chromium"
Lead
Nickel
Benzene
Benzo (a) anthracene
Benzo ( b ) f luoranthene
Benzo ( k) f luoranthene
Benzb ( a ) pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chrysene
1 , 1-Dichloroethane
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
1, l-oichloroethene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)
pyrene
Isophorone
Methylene chloride
Pentachlorophenol
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
vinyl chloride •"£•
A
B2
ai
NO
B2
NO
A
82
B2
B2
B2
82
—
B2
B2
C
B2
C
B2
e
82
82
B2
82
A
1.75
4.38+00
NO
NO
NO
NO
2.9E-02
NO
NO
NO
11.5
1 . 48-02
—
6.18-03
- NO
NO
9.18-02
68-01
NO
4.18-03
7.58-03
1.28-01
5 . 18-02
1.18-02
1.98+00
5.08+01
8.48-0
6.18+0
4 . 18+1
NO
8.48-01
2.98-2
NA
NO
NO
6.1
NO
NO
8.18-2
—
NO
9 . 18-2
1.28+0
NO
NO
6.38-3
~
—
1.78-2
Dermal 37
(mg/kg/day)"1
35
—
— —
•—
-—
5.88-1
—
— —
—
13.1
1.52-2
— ~
6.18-3
— —
— —
-—
12
— —
8.28-2
1.78-2
2.4
1.78-1
2.28-1
1.9
ST — ff *rff tnog^ti Ic
NO - Not Determined for this route
NA - Not Available
67
-------
MACOB/DOCXBRT ROD
chemicals from environmental madia can be compared to the Rfo for each of the
contaminant*. As with the 37m, oral RfDs must be adjusted for dermal exposure.
Table 42 lists all contaminants of concern with their respective RfDs.
d. Risk Characterization Summary
Lifetime excess cancer risks (LECR) are determined by multiplying the chronic
daily intake (COZ) by the slope factor. LECRs are probabilities that are
generally expressed in scientific notation (e.g., 1 x 10~6 or 1E-06). A LECR
of 12-06 indicates that, as an upperbound estimate, an individual has a one in
one million chance of developing cancer in his/her lifetime as a result of
exposure to a site related carcinogen under the specific exposure conditions at
a site.
The potential for noncarcinogenic effects from a single contaminant in a single
medium is expressed as a hazard quotient (BQ). The. HQ is the ratio of the
estimated human intake to the RfD for a particular contaminant.. By adding the
HQs for all contaminants within a medium and then across all media to which a
given population may reasonably exposed, the Hazard Index (HZ) can be generated.
The HI provides a useful reference point for assessing the potential
significance of exposure to multiple contaminants across multiple media.
EPA'a targeted LECR range for cleanup of superfund Sites is 1E-04 to 1E-06.
LECRs less than 1E-06 are deemed acceptable and those greater than 1E-04 are
unacceptable to EPA. LECRs that fall between 1E-04 and 1E-06 may or may not
warrant action, depending on site-specific factors considered by the risk
manager. Noncarcinogenic HI values greater than 1.0 indicate that remedial
action should be taken.
The resultant LECRs and HI for the current and future land use scenarios are
shown in Table.. 4,3 .jrhe on^v, site areas to exceed l.OE-06 LECR for the current
use scenario are the Upper and Lower Macon areas (6.2IE-OS and 4.20E-05,
respectively). These LECRs are primarily due to exposure to soil containing.
arsenic (Upper Macon),sand PAHs (Lower Macon). Ho HI exceeds 1.0 for the current
use scenario. ..-..•_.. ....... ...
The total LBCR and HI,.for the future use (residential) scenario are shown for
each of the site areas in Table 44 along with the contaminants responsible for
the major portion of the LECR/HI.
The risk McemoMnt process contains inherent uncertainties. Exposure
parameters) such as frequency and durarion of exposure and ingestion rate of
contaminated media can vary between individuals. Therefore, upperbound values
were used to estimate exposure, in order to be more protective of human health.
slope factors and Reference Doses each involve extrapolation to which
conservative uncertainty factors are added in order to be protective of
sensitive humans.
68
-------
TABLE 42
NON-CARCINOGENIC TOXICITY VALUES
oral RfD inhalation RfD Dermal RfD
chemical (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day)'1
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium 68-4
18-3
chromium
copper
Cyanide 68-4
4E-2
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Vanadium
Zinc
Acetone
Anthracene
Bis(2-ethylhezyl)
phthalate
chloroform
Di-n-butyl phthalate
1 , 1-Dichloroethane
( c ) 1 , 2-Diehloroethene
1, 1-Dichloroethylene
Bthylbenzene
rluoranthene "
pyrene
isophorone
..•.*- ./
. •.. -' . -^
Methylene chlorids)
Natrthalene .- * ~
B«r* ./.HI rifff^l
5£r-
pyrene -3aL-jaBis^— . -
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1, 1-Tetrachloroethane
Toluene
Xylenes
4B-4
1B-3
6E-2
6E-3
(water)
(Food)
6E-3
1.3 mg/1
(Potassium)
( sodium)
1B-1
3S-4
2B-2
28-1
7B-3
2B-1
1E-1
3E-1
2E-2
1E-2
1E-1
12-1
12-2
9E-3
18-1
(1B+0)
48-2
28-1
1 -
6B-2
48-3
38-2
38-2
18-2
98-2
28-1
28+0
18-3
ND
1E-4
ND
ND
28-
ND
ND
1B-4 ' :":
9B-5
ND
NO
ND
—
ND
.NO
• ND
ND
NO
1B-1
ND
ND
38-1
ND
ND
(not verified
under review)
3E+0
NO
NO
(under review)
NO
NO
3E-1
(under review)
5E-1
88-2
2B-4
5E-5
4.15E-2
—
1E-4
2.SB-4
—
1E+0
2.58-2
1.58-5
22-3
—
--
9.6E-2
5E-3
1.47B-1
1 . 8E-2
— —
1B-1
5E-3
5E-4
4.5E-4
8.4E-2
28-3
18-2
2.7Bl-2
3.28-3
1.58-3
1.478-2
38-3
4.58-3
18-2
28-2
Rio - Route specific Reference Oose
NO - Not Determined for this route
69
-------
Summary ol Risks
Macon/Dockery Site
Type of Risk
Surface
Soil
Ground
Water
Surface
Water
Sediment
Tcta!
Current Use
Upper Dockery
Carcinogenic
Noncarcinogenic
Lower Dockery
Carcinogenic
Noncarcinogenic
Upper Macon
Carcinogenic
Noncarcinogenic
Lower Macon
Carcinogenic
Noncarcinogenic
Pee Dee River at
Solomon's Creek
Carcinogenic
Noncarcinogenic
Pee Dee River at
Cheraw
Carcinogenic
Noncarcinogenic
Future Residential U«a
Upper Dockery
1.50E-04
2.88E-07
2.81 E-02
6.21 E-OS
4.13E-01
4.20E-05
1.27E-02
2.7SE-10
8.41 E-05
6.71 E-04
7.67E-10
1.03E-03
1.28E-11
3.09E-06
3.73E-07
7.89E-04
2.63E-13
3.02E-C8
3.33E-10
2.0SE-03
3.33E-10
2.14E-03
1 5CE-C.1
2.88E-37
2.82= -: 2
6.21 E-05
4.16E-01
4.20E-0:
1.59E-C2
1.2SE-11
3.09E-05
3.73E-07
7.89E-04
Carcinogenic
Noncarcinogenic
Lower Docke^
Upper Macon
Carcinogenic
Noncarcinogenic
Lower Macon
Carcinogenic
Noncarcinogenic
1.50E44
&88E-07
2.18E-01
%
4.56E-04
9.85E-01
3.58E-04
1.27E-01
1.03E+01
5.12E-04
9.70E+00
6.S5E-03
1.27E+01
1.29E-03
4.20E+00
- •
4.74E-10
1.72E-03
1.33E-03
8.91 E-10
1.97E-03
-
5.26E-13
6.04E-08
6. 66 E-10
3.45E-03
6.66E-10
3.70E-03
\
9.71E-03
5.12E-04
7. 00 E -03
1.36E+01
1 .64E-03 ,
4.33E*00
70
POOR QUALITY
ORIGINAL
-------
Table 44
Risk* & Hazard Associated with Potential Future Us*
Sit* Ar*a
LSCR/ BI
Primary contributors (chemical/medium)
upper
Dockery
Lower
Dockery
Upper
Macon
Lower
Macon
LECR » 9.7E-03
BX - in
LECR • 5.1B-04
BZ • 9.9
LBCR • 7.0B-03
BZ - 13.6
LECR - 1.6E-OJ
BZ « 4.3
beryllium, 1,1-dichloroethene in groundwater
chromium, vanadium, 1,1-dichloroethene in
groundwater
beryllium, l,l-dichloro*th*n* in groundwater
antimony, chromium, mangan*s*, vanadium, in
groundwat*r
arsenic in soil, beryllium, vinyl chloride
in groundwater
barium, chromium, manganese, nickel,
vanadium in groundwater
PABs in soil, beryllium, 1,1-dichloroethen*
in groundwater
barium, manganese, vanadium in groundwater
71
-------
BOO
oak-pine forest over most of the upland portions of the
nardwood wtland. along Solomon's creek. Terrestrial
". -it. include white-tailed deer, racoon opossum,
stern ctoail rabbit, and bob-whit, quail. Common duck and
Specie, frequent the wetlands along Solomon's creek and several
inhabit the Pee Dee River.
TO determine whether the site may have adverse effects on environmental
the -quotient method- was used, whereby exposure values were compared
.
areai could po..ibly pose some threat to area wildlife.
72
-------
1OCOV/DOCXSBZ BOO
The environmental setting and the extent and characteristics of the
contamination at the Macon/Dockery site were defined in section 1 and Section
5, respectively. Section 6 highlights the primary environmental media of
concern and the human health and environmental risks posed by the site.
section 6 contains lists of the contaminants of concern present in the
groundwater and soils at the Site. This Section examines the cleanup criteria
(ARARs) associated with the contaminants found on-site and the environmental
media contaminated.
-Duel. if ic
Action-specific requirements set controls/restrictions on the design,
performance, and other aspects for implementing a specific remedial activity.
Since action-specific ARARs apply to discrete remedial activities, they are
discussed in greater detail in section 8. The three categories for
action-specific ARARs are:
ARARs for actions taken in all alternatives;
ARARs for an action involving soil treatment; and
ARARs for an action involving groundwater treatment.
The first category specifies requirements for safety and health, hazardous
waste facilities, and transportation. The second category covers soil vapor
extraction, capping, and related air emissions. The last category applies to
the extraction and treatment of groundwater, the discharge of the treated
groundwater, and related air emissions.
chemical-specific ARARs are concentration limits in the environment promulgated
by government agencies. Health-based site-specific levels must be developed
for chemicals or media where such limits do not exist and there is a concern
with their potential heath or environmental impacts. Potential
chemical-specific AJtARs are discussed by media below.
PotenticJg|Mto for ground water include Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs),
Horth CajBU^e> Drinking Water standards, and North Carolina Ground-water
standard^;" •OB* chemicals at the site lacked established groundwater quality
criteria for consideration In developing remedial alternatives, consequently,
remediation levels were calculated for these chemicals using the preliminary
pollutant limit value (PPtV) approach.
73
-------
u*7t^HTIl flflut! sj>ilie.nt Levels (MCLS)
sit* ground water is considered a current source of drinking water under
Federal guidelines (Class XIA) and as class GA under North Carolina state
guidelines." The NCP states that Maximum contaminant Levels (MCLs), established
under the *afe Drinking water Act (SDWA), are potentially relevant and
appropriate) groundwater standards for the remediation of current or potential
sources of drinking water (300.430(e) (2) (i) (A) ) . MCLs and proposed MCLs for
Macon/Dockery site ground water chemicals are provided in Table 45. in
addition, the table presents the maximal groundwater concentration for a
particular chemical and its associated sampling location as determined by the
RI.
Horth gjiypiina Ground^Water
North Carolina drinking water standards (10 NCAC 100) are essentially identical
to the SDWA MCLs established by the EPA (Table 45). North Carolina Ground-water
Standards (North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) Title ISA, chapter 2,
Subchapter 2X>) for Class GA ground water are generally more stringent than MCLs
and are potentially applicable. Drinking water standards are equal or less
stringent than the North Carolina Ground-water standards.
-y Pollut»Tlt Ll""t Values
As seen on Table 45, three chemicals in the ground water lack established water
quality criteria for consideration in developing remedial alternatives. These
are acetone, 1,1-dichloroethane, and isophorone.
Ground water quality levels for these remaining compounds are healthbased risk
levels, where available, oral reference doses (RFD) are used for
none arc inogens while oral cancer potency factors are used for carcinogens.
Calculation of groundwater quality levels is baaed on the following EPA
factors i
70 kg body weight
2 liters per day ingeation
10~5 risk level (carcinogens).
PPLVs were calculated for 3 of the 4 chemicals. The resulting PPLVs are listed
in Table 45.
It was not possible to calculate a PPLV or find any quantitative risk
information about chloroetbane . Based on the information found and on the
localised* low concentrations of chloroethane at the Upper Macon site, it was
determined .that chloroethane is not a chemical of significant concern at the
site. ''
remediation levels for the Macon/Dockery site will be the most
stringent standard listed in Table 45. Table 46 presents the groundwater
chemicals of concern and their associated remediation level.
74
-------
08
33 33
OQ
Table 45 Comparison of Drinking Watei. Qiound Water, and North
Contract Required Deteclion/Quantllatlon Limits lor Chemicals Delected North Carolina Contract
In MaconjDockery Ground Water Carolina ' Ground Required
Drinking Water Detection or
Maximum SDWA Water Quality Quantitation
Chemical ' Cone. Well MCL Standard Standard Limits (1)
Claw Chanfetf (ug/L) Number (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L)
B
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
Antimony *
Barium
BetyHium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead (CERCLA level to 15 uoffl
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
Isophorone JPPLV = 70 ug/L) (5)
Acetone (PPLV = 3500 ug/L)(5|_
Benzene
Chloroform
1.1-Dichloroethane (PPLV = 35OO)(5)
1.1-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Oichloroelhene (total)
Methyjene Chloride
Tetfachkxoethene
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichtoroethane
Trtehtoroethene
Vinyl Chloride
Xytenes (Total)
20
5710
22
0
1400
76
6130
0.3
2120
627
730
10.4
2
59
6
17
19O
640
150
2
44
7
500
290
510
9
16
9
6
16
5
6
5
15
9
5
6
10
9.19
20
19
1
9.19
15
5
2A
5
9
15
2
9
19
NA
1000(2)
1(3)
10
100
50
50(4)
2
100(3^
NA
5000(4)
200
NA
NA
5
NA
NA
7
cis-70;lrans-lOO
5(3)
5"
1000
200
5
2
10.000
NA
1000(2)
1(3)
10
50
50
50(4)
2
100(3)
NA
50OO(4)
200
NA
NA
5
NA
NA
7
cis-70;trans-100
5(3)
5
1000
200
5
2
10,000
NA
1000
NA
5
50
50
SO
11
150
NA
5OOO
154
NA
NA
1
0.19
NA
7
cis- 70; trans -70
5
0.7
1000
200
2.6
O.015
400
60
200
5
S
10
3
15
0.2
40
SO
20
10
10
10
5
5
5
S
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
5
SDWA MCL B Sale Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Level (40 CFR Part 141 61)
North Carolina Drinking Water Standards from NCAC Title 10. Ch. 10. Subsection 10D
North Carolina Ground-Water Standards lor ground water class GA from NCAC Title ISA. Ch.2. Oct. 1990
NA • Not Available
-------
lublo 46 UiuiinJ-Wului Huiiiuillalluu Luvols Tor Ilia Mauuii/UuuKuiy Ulle
-o
O
OO
33
Clioinlunl
Mnxlinuin
Cone. Well
Jug/LJ Number
Remediation
'Level
(ug/D
Source
u
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
Anllmoiiy
Dailuin i
Beryllium • 1
Cadmium
Chromium \
Lead
Manyanese
Mercury
Nickel
Vanadium
Zlno
Cyanide
leophorone
Acetone
Benzene
Chloroform
1.1 -Dlchloruallinne
1,1- Dichloroeilioiie
1,2-Dlcltloroollieiie (total)
Molhylene CliloiiUo
Telrachloroollieiie
Toluene
1,1,1-Tilcliloroelhane
Trlcliloroelhene
Vinyl Chloride
Xvlenes (Total)
29
67 10
22
G
1400
70
013,0
0.3
2120
C27
730
10.1
2
59
0
17
190
C40
ISO
2
44
7
600
290
510
9
1G
0
6
10
&
0
&
IS
9
6
G
10
9.10
20
19
1
9.1U
15
5
2A
5'
9
15
2
9
19
60
1000 (1)
1
5
50
15
60(3)
1.1
100 (2)
50
5000 (3)
154
70
3500
1
.19
3500
7
cls-70;trans-70
5(2)
0.7
1000
200
2.0
0.015
400
CERCLA Detection Limit
SOWA MCL/NC Ground Water Standard
SDWA MCL (
NC Ground Water Standard
NC Ground Water Standard
CERCLA Level
SDWA MCL/NC Ground Water Standard
NC Ground Water Standard
SDWA MCL
CERCLA Detection Limit
SDWA MCL/NC Ground Water Standard
NC Ground Water Standard
Preliminary Pollutant Limit Value (PPUV)
Preliminary Pollutant Limit Value (PPLV)
NC Ground Water Standard
NC Ground Water Standard
Preliminary Pollutant Limit Value (PPLV)
SDWA MCL/NC Ground Water Standard
NC Ground Water Standard
SDWA MCL/NC Ground Water Standard
NC Ground Water Standard
SDWA MCL/NC Ground Water Standard
SDWA MCL/NC Ground Water Standard
NC Ground Water Standard
NC Ground Water Standard
NC Ground Water Standard
CERCLA Detection Umll <=• Cunbacl Required Detection Limit (inorganics)
CERCLA Quanlllallon Limit » Contract Required Quanlltallon Limit (organlcs)
SDWA MCL • Sale Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Level (40 CFR Part 141.61)
Noilli Carolina Ground Water Standards lor ground water class GA Iroin NCAC Title 1&A, Ch.2. Oct. 1990
Preliminary Pollutant Limit Value (PPLV) derived In Appendix D ol the FS
(1) = Proposed revised MCL loi uailum Is 2000 ug/L
(2) »> Proposed MCL (pMCL)
(3) = Secondary (aesthetic) slmidaid
I a |noiyanic;U *> Uaso Exlruclubiu Uiyanlc Compound; V = Volatile Organic Compound
-------
lOCOd/DOCKERT ROD
surficial soil*
The current-use risk assessment determined risk levels for surficial soils.
For carcinogen*, an acceptable risk ia 10E-4 to 10E-6 (or below) and for
non-carcinogens, a HI less than 1. carcinogenic risks for site surface soil
were slightly exceeded at the Upper and Lower Macon site (Table 43), primarily
as a result of arsenic. Ho surficial soil had a HZ greater than one. Arsenic
was detected at the Upper Macon site from 1.9 to 5.8 ppa and at the Lower Macon
Site froa 0.88 to 3.9 ppa while average background concentration for arsenic
was 3 ppm at the site. There are no promulgated Federal or state standards
applicable for contaminants detected in surface soil at the site. However, a
relevant and appropriate ARAR for surface soils is RCRA soil action levels (40
CPR Part 264.521 (a)(2)(i-iv). The RCRA soil action level for arsenic
(non-carcinogenic, systemic risks) is 80 mg/kg while the maximum arsenic
concentration for surface soils at the Upper Macon Site was 5.8 N mg/kg (N
indicates that the spiked sample recovery was outside of control limits) and
3.9 mg/kg at the Lover Macon site. In addition, there is a degree of
uncertainty associated with the potential risks posed by exposure to trace
levels of arsenic in the Site surface soil, as discussed in the Risk
Assessment, for these reasons, the surficial soils at the Macon site do not
require remediation. Consequently, remediation of surficial soils at the site
will not be considered.
subsurface soils
Remediation levels for subsurface soils that are above the ground water are
based on a compound's potential to impact ground water, concentrations of
chemicals in subsurface soil that are protective of ground water were developed
using the Vadose Zone Interactive Processes (VIP) model.
This model was developed by EPA'3 Kerr Environmental Laboratory (Ada, Oklahoma)
and the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department of Utah State University
(Logan, Utah). The VIP model was developed to accurately predict the fata and
transport of compounds in the vadose zone of soil.
Details about the modeling, including input parameters, are provided in
Appendix B of the PS.
Potential remediation levels for vadose zone soils are provided in Tables 47
through 51 for the Site. These tables present the maximum vadose concentration
for a chssstnfl. and its estimated concentration in, and time of travel to the
water tablsC* For^eoBpounds that are estimated to migrate to the ground water,
the "tlf^sjfljrffijtjijjt i tl Inn and its regulatory limit (if any) are presented for
coBpariM*. for three compounds found in the ground water (acetone,
isophoronej, and 1,1-dichloroethane), PPLVS were used for comparison since no
MCL values were available. The derivation of PPLVS for these compounds is
provided in Appendix D of the PS.
Upper Macon site
Potential subsurface soil remediation levels for the Upper Macon site ar«
provided in Table 47. The VI? model estimated that five organic compounds
7.7
-------
Tib*
Koterroei 901 neineumumi Levels
Upper MaconSfte
Chemical
Max.
Vadose
Cone.
Depth
to
Ground
Water
(Feet)
Estimated
Time
To Reach
Ground
Water
(Days)
caum«iea
Leachata
Cone.
From
Vadose
Zone (VIP)
(ug/L)
Maximum
Estimated Ground
Ground Water
Water Remediation
Cone. Level (1)
(ug/L) (ug/U
| Semivolatiles (ug/kg for the vadose zone) ;
BenzoeAod
Phenot
Acenaphtheoe
Acenaphthytene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)aitnracene
Benzo(a)pyrane
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Banzo(g,h.i)peryiene
Benzo
-------
Tabft*7(conrd)
PotertW So- RemrfBarton Levels
UpperiMacatSr
•
Max.
Vadose
Chemcal Cone.
_ ^^_ ^M^i^^^^^^^^^^^^^™^^^^^^^^™ ™^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[inorganics (mg/l
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cotoatt
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Thalium
Vanadium
Zinc
«q for the vadose zone)
7.4
4.5
337
WWt
44
, 1
30
462
119
176
62
1610
0.16
263
0.45
Ofm
.90
?*A
Aww
137
Depth
to
Ground
Water
(Feet)
^ -
27
27
10
10
27
10
10
10
20
10
20
10
27
27
10
27
Estimated
Time
To Reach
Ground
Water
(Days)
5 feet/50 yrs.
< 7 feet/50 yrs.
±if\
NO
NO
10 feet/50 yrs.
<6 feet/50 yrs.
<8 teet/50 yrs.
<6 feet/50 yrs.
5 feet/50 yrs.
<5 feet/50 yrs.
5 feet/50 yrs.
5 feet/50 yrs.
15 feet/50 yrs.
k if%
NO
NO
7 feet/50 yrs.
Estimated
leachale
Cone.
From
Vadose
Zone (VIP)
(ug/U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Maximum
Estimated
Ground
Water
Cone.
(ug/U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Ground
Water
Remediation
Level (1)
(ug/U
NA » Not Applicable NO * Not Determined (no Kd value found)
(1) Ground-water remediation level provided only tor chemicals predicted to
impact the ground water
(2) Not detected in the Upper Macon Site ground water
(3) Maximum isophorone concentration was 2 ug/L in the ground water at the Upper Macon Site'
(4) PPW: see Appendix D
(5) Maximum acetone concentration was 42 ug/L in the ground water at the Upper Macon Site
(6) Maximum tetrachtoroethene (PCS) concentration was 44 ug/L in the ground water
at the Upper Macon Site; estimated PCE concentration was 2 ug/L with a halt-life
of 300 day* and 80 ug/L with no half-tie (i.e.. no degradation).,
79
-------
would reach the ground water from the vadose zone above detection limits:
acenapbthene, isophorone, acetone, ethylbenzene , and tetraehloroethene (PCS).
only three of the compounds were found in the ground water: isophorone at 2
ug/L (VIP predicted 4 ug/L), acetone at 42 ug/L (VIP predicted 33 ug/L) , and
tetracbloroethene at 44 ug/L (VIP predicted from 2 to 80 ug/L) . The other
compound* were not detected in ground water.
Comparison of Table 26 (ground water, upper Macon) with Table 47 (vadoae zone,
Upper Macon) shows that some compounds were detected in the ground water but
not in the vadose zone. For example, vinyl chloride (a degradation product of
chlorinated aliphatic compounds such as PCS) was found in the ground water at
the Upper Macon site at a maximum concentration of 510 ug/L but not in the
vadose zone, other examples include chloroethane (possibly a degradation
product of trichloroethene) and 1,1-dichloroethene.
Consequently, it appears as though volatile organic compounds in the Upper
Macon vadose zone may continue to impact the ground water, specifically, PCS
and vinyl chloride are the compounds of concern. PCS may impact the ground
water directly (as PCS) or indirectly, by serving as the parent compound for
the formation of vinyl chloride.
certain metals in the vadose zone of the upper Macon site appear to be slightly
above background levels (Table 25). site-specific modeling (VIP) indicates that
these metals will not migrate to any significant degree nor are they expected
to adversely impact the site ground water. However, the VIP model uses certain
assumptions and input parameters. Assumptions used in the modeling may
underestimate or overestimate metals migration. For this reason, it is
possible that the modeling underestimated the potential impact of metals in the
vadoae zone on the ground water. Thus, there is a limited potential that
certain metals may impact the ground water above naturally-occurring metals
concentrations .
Lower Maeon site
Because- of the differences in waste materials between Lagoon 10 and Lagoon 11
they were modeled separately using the VIP model. Potential remediation levels
for the Lower Macon site Lagoon 10 are provided in Table 48. The VZP model
estimated that seven organic compounds would impact the ground water: benzole
acid, acenaphthene, di-n-butyl phthalate, acetone, ethylbenzene, styrene, and
toluene, goyever, only acetone and benaoic acid were- detected in the ground
water at tbi, Lpw^t.jjacca. ftite (Table 48 >. VIP Modeling for Lagoon 11 predicted
that acenapfetbjAe wjpuld impact the ground water at the Lower Macon site.
However, f£B£j^h£hene, was not detected in the Lower Macon site ground water.
— * — y^- •••« •
Material £roa Lagoon 10 at the Lower Maeon site contains some of the highest
chemical concentrations on site. Lagoon 10 contain* various organic wastes,
including 950 tons of creosote and solidified sludge collected during EPA '9
immediate removal action, creosote is a complex mixture of compounds,
primarily polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHS) and phenolic substances. The
major PABs in creosote are 2-, 3-, 4- and 5 -ring compounds, including
naphthalene, acenaphthene, fluorene, anthracene, phenanthrene, fluoranthene,
pyrene and benzo(a)pyrene, all of which were detected in samples collected form
80
-------
AcenaoMhene
Acenap*yl*««
8enzo(a)arthreeene
Benzo(a)pyrone
BenzoOOtuorarrthene
bi*<2-
Chryeene
Oiberoo<«.h)anthracen*
Ftuoranlhen*
Fluorine
2-MeatytnapMhalene
Naphthalene
Phemrthrene
5300
31000
310000
160000
150000
140000
120000
60000
120000
11000
140000
18000
30000
3200
200000
250000
47000
14000
3100000
1300000
410000
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
21
28
28
28
21
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
2900
1300
Degrade*
degrade*
Immobile
Immobile
Immobile
Immobile
Immobile
Immobile
Immobile
Immobile
Immobile
10000
Degrade*
Degrade*
Immobile
Immobile
Degrade*
Degrade*
Oegrad*
26
310
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4
NA
NA
NA.
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 7 feet/50 yr».
NO
NO
< 6 feet/50 y»«-
<8«eeV50yr».
<6teet/30yr».
<5teeV90yr*.
< 5 feet/50 yr*.
NO
<7feeV50yr».
NA • Not A*fJajM* NO - Not Determined (no Kd value found)
(]) aroun4»«M*jif*jBWdMan level provided only for chemical* predicted to
impact 9nt ojojHBV wejei
(2) Benxote ejaJi «O»ce*«a*on In ttM Lower Maeon Site ground water waa 3 ug/l
(3) Not detected in the ground water at tne tower Maeon Site
(4) Acetone eoneentatfon in ttw Lower Maeon Site ground water wa* 7 ug/l
NA
13(21
152(3)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
N'A
NA
NA
NA
NA
2(3)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
81
-------
AeenapMhene
Acenapttytene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)*niwac
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo
-------
ROD
Lagdbn 10. PAHs typically exhibit low volatility, low aqueous solubility and
adsorb onto soils. The risks to ground water posed by these compounds is
minimal sine* they are relatively immobile in soils (Vip Model) and are located
at least 21 feet above the water table. In addition, a temporary
soil/polyethylene cap was placed on Lagoon 10 during the interim remediation.
Cadmium appears to be the only metal that is slightly elevated in the Lower
Macon vadose zone (see Table 25).
Upper Dockerv site
The Upper Oockery Site does not contain any former lagoons. However, it
reportedly served as a drum storage area, vadose zone contamination at the
Upper Dockery site is most likely related to reported drum storage.
Potential remediation levels for the upper Dockery site are provided in Table
50. The VIP model estimated that five organic compounds could impact the ground
water: diethy1 phthalate, dimethyl phthalate, acetone, methylene chloride, and '
4-methy1-2-pentanone.
Certain metals in the vadose zone of the Upper Macon Site appear to be slightly
above background levels (Table 25).
Lower Dockerv site
Potential remediation levels for the Lower Dockery, site are provided in Table
51. The VIP model estimated that acetone would be found in the ground water at
4 ug/L, well below its PPLV of 3500 ug/L. However, acetone was not detected in
the Lower Dockery site ground water (Table 48). six organic compounds were
detected in the Lower Dockery site groundwater: bis<2-ethylhexyl)phthalate,
chloroform, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethene, and trichloroethene, and
1,1,1-trichloroethane (Table 31).
certain metals in the vadose zone of the Lower Macon site appear to be slightly
above background levels (Table 25).
Surfac* Waters
surface water from the Site drains into Solomons Creek and finally into the Pee
Dee River. Potential ARARs for surface water include Federal Ambient water
Quality Criteria (ANQC, 1986). As seen in Table 43, the current use and
predicted rotuie carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks associated with site
surface wster* war* all within acceptable risks. Therefore, remediation of
surface vst«r at the site- is not necessary.
Sediments
There are no promulgated Federal or state quality standards for sediments.
However, as seen in Table 43, the current use and predicted future carcinogenic
and non-carcinogenic risks associated with site sediments were all
83
-------
Tab* SO
Potential Vadose Z*» Remediation
i I_A&» V\^^^^MM 4MB
upper DeeMiy ae*
Chemical Cone. (Fe*n iuay»> }^xs «- — . :
WI1»1M*»^_^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^•^••^ "^^^^^^
Levels
Max.
Vadose
Cone.
Estimated
Depth Time
,0 To Reach
Ground Ground
Water Water
_g~t) (Days)
Estimated
Leachaia
Cone.
From
Vadose
Zone (VIP)
(ug/U
Maximum
Estimated Ground
Ground Water
Water Remediation
Cone. Level (1)
(ug/U (ug/U
) e^iu^*^ (ua/ka tor vadose zone)
b«(2- Bhylhexyl)phthaia»
Oi-n-butyl phthalata
Diethytphtnaiate
Dimethyl phthaiate
isopharone nuu ,
620
42
9500
1600
T*
r O
97
17 immobile
13 5000
17 1000
13 700
., «5O
17 Baw
17 600
NA
<1
70
14
-*<
^ 1
1
NA
<1
30(2)
6(2)
<1
<1
g-mthvtpnenol i
j voiataea (uq/kg teTvadose zone) •
Acetone
2-Butanone
Methylene Chloride
4-Methyi-2-P«ntanone
Toluene
Tetrachloroelhene
1.1.1-Trehtoroethane
Trichloroathene IJMraM» — _^ ,
... ^nw-n 390 17 u«g»ao»» ^L_ .
9200
16000
500
5000
460
540
630
530
390
13 420
17 Degrades
17 600
17 700
17 Degrades
17 2500
17 1600
17 1200
17 Decades
_ — — — •
75
NA
2
5
NA
1
<1
<1
NA
32(3) 3500(4)
NA
1(2) 5
2(2)
NA
<1
<1
<1
NA
Xylenes (Total) . — - : • J
| inorganics (mgAqfor vadose zone) -
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Vanadium
Zinc
NA - Not A*J>J||LBM1^
(1 ) Ground— ••aW nwadaBion wvei
impact ttw^MWSwBW
(2) Notda
-------
Tab* 51
PottffVtt VWoM 2oht ntnuOatoi lavcts Estimated
LfiMfaW B^MfiiMffW SAh> Ctttimfltavri L_AflChftlB
kW**W WVKHeWy ^••e* C3urri«lWW U^«vr*elW
Depth Time Cone.
Max. to To Reach Prom
Vadose Ground Ground Vadose
Cone. Water Water Zone (VIP)
Chemical (ug/kg) (Feet) (Days) (ug/U
Maximum
Estimated
Ground
Water
Cone.
(ug/U
Ground
Water
Remediation
Level (1)
(ug/U
| SemivoialiJes (ug/kg for the vadose zone) ;
Pentachtorophenol 300 14 4300 * mw *>
Methylene Chloride 28 14 600 <1
4-Methv(-2-Pent«none 52 14 600 i
Toluene 87 21 Degrades NA
1,1.1-Trichtoroethane 32 21 Degrades NA
Xyienes Octal) 53 21 Degrades NA
4(2)
NA
NA
1^ 1
.'ft 1
<1
«? 1
^ 1
<1
<1
NA
NA
NA
3500(3)
I Inorganics (mg/kg for the vadose zone) •
Arsenic 1.7 21 <7 feet/50 yrs. NA
Barium 228 14 - ND
Beryllium 0.7 14 ND
Chromium 252 14 <6feeV50yrs. NA
Cobalt 99 14 <8 feet/50 yrs. NA
Copper 167 14 <6 feet/50 yrs. NA
Lead 6.1 14 <5 feet/50 yrs. NA
Manganese 1480 14 <5feet/yrs. NA
Nickel 251 14 <5 feet/50 yrs. NA
Vanadium 232 14 NO
Zinc 52 14 <7feet/50yr*. NA
NA«NotAvaMM» NO -Not Determined (no Kd value found)
(1) Grourid--«aaarmn«dlBbon lev*) provided only for chemcate estimated
to impact ttefpwndvajar
(2) Acetanc^afliMldMacttd in the ground water at the Lower Dockery Site
(3) PPLV:ea»AFfBndfcD
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
•- NA
85
-------
within acceptable risks. Therefore, remediation of sediment at the site is not
necessary.
Vessels
There are several vessels on the Macon site (tanks, tankers, and vats) that
contain waste materials. A relevant and appropriate requirement for off-site
disposal of vessel contents is RCRA (Resource conservation and Recovery Act)
guidance. As a preliminary step for identifying off-site disposal
alternatives, RCRA guidance was used to determine if the vessel contents were
hazardous according to the Toxicity characteristics Leaching Procedure (TCLP)
and selected hazard characteristics (i.e., ignitability and corrosivity).
Consequently, vessel contents were sampled and analyzed for these parameters.
Results of the sampling and analysis were presented in Table 37. only 3
vessels contained waste that could be considered hazardous for offsite disposal
under RCRA guidance: solids in vat 4 (TCLP lead at 7 mg/L), oil in Tank 3 (TCLP
lead at 15 mg/L), and oil in Tank 4 (TCLP lead at 10 mg/L). The oil in Tanks 3
and 4 is most likely used engine oil that was contaminated with tetraethyl lead
(former antiknock agent in gasoline). Used oil is currently not considered a
hazardous waste. Contents of the remaining vessels are not considered
hazardous wastes, off-site remedial alternatives for the vessels will consider
these data and RCRA guidance. Additional characterization may be necessary
depending on the waste disposal method that is selected.
ation— specific
Location-specific ARARs must consider Federal, state, and local requirements
that reflect the physiographical and environmental characteristics of the site
or the immediate area. Remedial actions may be restricted or precluded
depending on the location or characteristics of the site and the resulting
requirements. A listing of potential location-specific ARARs and their
consideration are in Table 52.
site media that pose significant risks to human health and the environment
and/or exceed ARARs represent areas of potential remediation, -potential human
health and environmental risks were evaluated in the risk assessment. The
following sections discuss the specific areas of potential remediation.
Ground VttfesK
The results of the Rl and the predicted future residential use scenario (Table
43) indicate that ground water exceeds risk levels at the Site.
86
-------
TABLE 52
POTENTIAL LOCATION - SPECIFIC
MACON/OOCKERY SITE
grr»TTN
Wtran 61 m*nn (200 (Ml) 01 a 40CF3 Z64.1S lai N*» natmrt. sioraoi. or NM an «KAR bccauM &>t a
taut esucM n Hoiocan* am eaaoui tx nazaraou vast rci warm 2CO IMI 01 a taui
prcnetM: appMt to flCRA csaacM m noxxom omt
riazaroous wasui trvauncrfl.
sxrjga. or "T"*l>
Wean 100-TtaMloca own 40CFR2S* 18101 Facaty rrv« o* dn^wd. •>«ani
conauuaid. optf and. and "01« a
iranaraa ID i>«o wamut:
agpatt B RCRA nazaraaui
•ant: tnaunwt. songa. or
wmmlMdpUtt Prattaan o> noedpiains (40 Aoonto avoaad»«i«KKen. NCI an ARARe*eau» S.:«
CFR 6. Agpcrm A): Fan and mrmz* poianai nanm. rtaer* rro «i a nooo oum
iiV*M« ruiiiTniiirn fn |in anoop»«4«v«ruaxjiand
USC Mi flaa):4* CFR btrataal »aM*: appkn id
( 302: Ftood oa»u Ei»o*w» aoanravlecD«naRoed
Ore* (EO 11986) 0*". '•. "w^ndm. and
liana*aotanrg
ointf flood pron* arus.
winnaniawMra aeanmay Naoonai Haioncai PrtMrvaton RtojMW mai aoon M laMn » Not an ARAfl Mcaus* 3.:* a
caus*(raoaraoltnarm.touor Act(i6USC S«asn469);3« i*oov*randpr«34iv« aruaea noi aots^nanoirc-jeoe^oi
oesiruoen at sqnikan a/uuas CFR Pan 65 wwi astraon ot ttnn ma.
ittrtaitra ugrdcan jotfMC.
prenotoncai. naoncai. or
aroueoagcaiaaia.
CntcathaMaiuponvndi EndangtrM Sp*o*i Aa ol it tndang»nd or uuMlarxd Not an ARAR btcaus* S<« oo«
•noangirtd VMd*t o» un(i6USC 1S31 oiaa-):50 «*BM «• pman. aosn muu not ha»« »mang«rio or
uvMitncd tpMM d*MM§ CFR Pan 200. SO CFR Pan 402: MiaMntdCOfMn* uinanntd sptcwi.
F«f> and WitaVtCoordMton ' •ndangtrad of mnaMnM
CFB Pan* 320-330 Mfiiti* 0*pMi«nalUMnor
ClMnWaMrAaS«aan404: FarwMandiacoMradbyU^. PoWrti* ARAR.
4Q CFH Part 230.33 CFR Pant ArmrCorpiolEngmw*
320-330 ngutaton*. mot taM aeoon to
proriMdfccnanj*alonaDMar
Mn '
40 CFB Pan 8, Apptnad A For aeaen ***** ooraauaon Pottnat ARAB.
by 40 CFR PW •.
SKton 4 0).
taMn B
M WldMSaricRioMAailt F«aaMM
-------
10COV/DOCKKB? ROD
Surficial Soil*
Surficial soils at the site do not require remediation.
Subsurface Soil*
One potential need for remediation of subsurface soils is based on the ability
of a chemical to migrate (through leaching) and thereby impact ground water at
concentrations exceeding groundvater ARARS.
Only the vadose zone at the Upper Macon site (i.e., Lagoon 7) requires
remediation to mitigate the potential effects on ground water of volatile
organic compounds. Remediation of other vadose zone soils for groundwater is
not required, for the following reasons:
contaminant slugs have already passed through the vadose zone
further slugs of contamination have been eliminated by the removal of
the concentrated source areas during the interim remediation
conducted by the EPA
inorganic chemicals remaining in the vadose zone, although above
background levels, are not expected to adversely impact the ground
water; however, during remedial design, further evaluation of the
potential for impacting groundwater will be evaluated for but not
limited to chromium
organic chemicals remaining in the vadose zone are not expected to
adversely impact the ground water; however, during remedial design,
further evaluation of the potential for leaching at levels that
adversely impact groundwater will be evaluated
there is no direct exposure route from vadose zone chemicals to
humans or the environment
in the unlikely event that contaminants migrate from the vadose zone
to ground water above MCLS, they could be captured and removed from
the ground water by ground water extraction.
Material frc* Lagoon 10 at the Lower Macon site contains contains relatively
concentrated levels of PAHs in the waste. 'Lagoon 10 is covered by a temporary
cap that m* built during the initial site remediation in 1982-1983. since
this cap is temporary, there is the possibility that the cap could fail, thus
potentially exposing humans and the environment to impact from these wastes.
Consequently, Lagoon 10 requires remediation.
As discussed, the vadose zone at the upper Macon Site may adversely impact the
ground water (PCS at former Lagoon 7) while the vadose zone at the Lower Macon
site (i.e., Lagoon 10) may result in future exposure to the buried FAB
compounds. The estimated volume at Lagoon 7 that would require remediation is
1300 cubic yards. The estimated volume of remediation at Lagoon 10 is
88
-------
BOO
10Q.O cubic yards, wait* at Lagoon 10 is estimated to be from 2 to 10 feet
below the land surface.
surface
Surface water at the site does not require remediation.
Sediments
sediment at the site does not require remediation.
Vessels
A relevant and appropriate requirement for off-site disposal of vessel contents
is RCRA guidance. Additional characterization may be necessary depending on
the disposal alternatives that are considered.
89
-------
MACOH/DOOOKRY ROD
Tables 53 and 54 summarize the technologies considered for
remediating/controlling groundwater and source contamination, respectively at
the Macon/Dockery site. These tables also provide the rationale as to why
certain technologies were not retained for further consideration after the
initial screening, surface water/sediment remediation technologies were not
evaluated as this environmental medium has not been impacted by the Site nor is
it expected to be in the future. Although air is not a present exposure
pathway, it may pose a risk during the implementation of either the groundwater
treatment system or during the remediation of the soils. Any potential impact
on air will be considered along with the description of each individual
remedial alternative.
a. BKKKnTaT- *T.i»»»«%Tivga tp ADDRESS gaOOHDWATBR COMTAiiTHATIOM
The following alternatives were developed to address groundwater contamination
at the site. The three groundwater control (GWC) remedial alternatives are:
GHC-1A: NO Action
GWC-IB: Long-term Monitoring of Groundwater
GWC-2A: Recovery and Treatment of all site Groundwater exceeding
Groundwater Remediation'Levels using Air stripping,
coagulation/filtration
The remedial response actions to address groundwater contamination are
discussed below.
GWC-IA: Bo action
The NO Action alternative is included,-,as required by CERCLA and the NCP, to
serve as a baseline for comparison with other groundwater control measures.
This alternative would not involve any treatment or other remedial actions.
The description of this alternative is included in the following section.
GWC-lBt Soag-tsm Monitoring of Groundwater
This alternative is identical to GWC-IA but includes long-term monitoring of
site groundwater and the placement of deed restrictions to reduce the potential
for the construction of potable wells on the property.
In Alternatives GWC-IA and GWC-1B, site conditions would remain unchanged.
90
-------
TABLE 53
GROUND WATER CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY
EXTRACTION WELL
INTERCEPTION TRENCHES AND
SUBSURFACE DRAMS
NO ACTION
GROUND WATER TREATMENT
AIR STRIPPING
ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION
SORPTTVE RESINS
CHEMICAL OXIDATION (UVOZONE)
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
LAND TREATMENT
PRECIPITATION
FILTRATION
REVERSE OSMOSIS
COAGULATION
GROUND WATER DISCHARGE
STATUS
RETAINED
REJECTED
RETAINED
RETAINED
RETAINED
REJECTED
RETAINED
REJECTED
REJECTED
REJECTED
RETAINED
REJECTED
RETAINED
SURFACE WATER RETAINED
HORIZONTAL INFILTRATION GALLERY RETAINED
INJECTION WELLS REJECTED
PUBUCLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS (POTW) REJECTED
REASON
CANNOT BE INSTALLED AT DEPTH IN BEDROCK
EFFECTIVENESS AND RELIABILITY
CHLORINATED VOCS RESISTANTTO BIOOEGRADATTON
RESISTANT COMPOUNDS, SEASONAL USE
LIMITED EFFECTIVENESS
SUSCEPTIBLE TO CHEMICAL FOULING AND PLUGGING
PROVISIONALLY DEPENDING ON APPLICATION RATES
NOT PERMITTABLE
IMPLEMENTABUJTY
-------
TABLE 54
SOURCE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY
MACOIIOOCKERY
DIRECT TREA'
IN-SITU TREATMENT
OFF-SITE TREATMENT
CONTAINMENT
TECHNOLOGY STATUS
LAND TREATMENT RETAINED
MOAEACTOR REJECTED
8UPERCRmCAL CO2 EXTRACTION REJECTED
BEST PROCESS REJECTED
OXIDATION REJECTED
REDUCTION REJECTED
SUPERCRITICAL WATER OXIDATION REJECTED
SOIL WASHING REJECTED
CEMENTBASED STABILIZATION REJECTED
SILICATE-BASED STABILIZATION REJECTED
MODIFIED CLAY BASED STABILIZATION REJECTED
THERMOPLASTIC MICROENCAPSULATION REJECTED
TRANSPORTABLE INCINERATION REJECTED
LOW TEMPERATURE THERMAL SEPARATION REJECTED
SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION RETAINED
ENHANCED BIODEGRADAT1ON REJECTED
SOIL FLUSHING REJECTED
VITRIFICATION REJECTED
COMMERCIAL LANDFILUNG RETAINED
COMMERCIAL INCINERATION RETAINED
CAPPING RETAINED
SLURRY WALL REJECTED
GROUTING REJECTED
SHEET PILING REJECTED
CONTAINER PILES REJECTED
ON-SfTE LANDFILL REJECTED
REASON
EFFECTIVENESS AND COSTS '•,'
NOT A DEMONSTRATED TECHNOLOGY
COSTS
LIMITED APPLICATION
NOT FULLY DEVELOPED
NOT DEMONSTRATED TECHNOLOGY
LIMITED FULL-SCALE APPLICATION
EFFECTIVENESS
EFFECTIVENESS
NOT DEMONSTRATED TECHNOLOGY
NO FIELD APPLICATION FOR SOILS
IMPLEMENTATION
IMPLEMENTATION
MORE EFFECTIVE TECHNOLOGY AVAILABLE
LIMITED EFFECTIVENESS
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENTATION
IMPLEMENTATION
IMPLEMENTATION
LIMITED FULL-SCALE APPLICATION
MORE EFFECTIVE TECHNOLOGY AVAILABLE
NO ACTION
RETAINED
-------
MACOW/DOCXKRI ROD
slight remediation of contaminated groundwater may occur through natural
process** such as biodegradation, adsorption, and attenuation by upgradient
flow. The low concentration of site-related chemicals.that would remain in the
ground water have the potential to discharge to Solomons creek.
implementation of Alternative GWC-IA could begin immediately and would have no
negative impacts of future remedial actions. Operating costs would be incurred
because of the mandatory review every five years, implementation of
Alternative GWC-18 may be delayed approximately one month as this approach may
include the installation of additional monitoring wells, in addition, under
GWC-IB, deed restrictions would be placed on the property in an attempt to
limit the future use of the groundwater. capital costs for GWC-13 would be
incurred for monitoring well construction; operating costs would include
periodic groundwater sampling, chemical analysis, and reviewing and documenting
site conditions every five years; maintenance costs would be incurred for
inspection of the monitoring wells.
Estimated period of operation: 30 years
Estimated Total Cost (net present worth):
Alternative GWC-1 $ 140,000
Alternative GWC-2 $1,840,000.
GHC-2A: Recovery and Treataent of all site Groundwater exceeding Groundwater
Remediation Levels using Air Stripping, Coagulation/Filtration
This alternative considers the entire Site as the point of compliance;
therefore, under this alternative all groundwater exceeding remediation levels
will be recovered through a system of extraction wells at the Upper Macon,
Lower Macon, Upper Dockery, and Lower Dockery sites as presented in Figures 8
and 9. The Site is delineated by the extent of contamination in the
groundwater.
The treatment systea for the extracted groundwater would involve installing
piping froa each extraction well to a common treatment area, a specific -
treatment system, and discharging the treated groundwater. Because of the
distance involved, separate treatment facilities will be specified for the
Macon and Dockery sites. The total extracted flow rate for Option GWC-2A is
estimated to be 40 gallons per minute (gpmy. The conceptual flow diagram for
ground water treataent is presented in Figure 10.
Air stripalB? is a mass transfer process in which volatile compounds in a water
column are transferred to an air stream within a packed tower. The air
stripping tower will remove the volatile compounds to below quantitation
limits. Under -north Carolina Air Pollution Rules* (ISA MCAC 2O.1104) a permit
is required for the emission of any toxic vocs. Toxic vocs should not be
emitted in such quantities that the resulting concentration at the property
line is above the allowable concentrations. Allowable concentrations of toxic
vocs are given in -North Carolina Air Pollution Rules- (ISA NCAC 2O.1104). To
satisfy North Carolina requirements, the impact of emissions from the proposed
air stripper for treating the contaminated ground water at the site was
93
-------
—vN*>
--=:-* \
rIOU« . - H.COH
-------
\ \
..&*#*'
Xefz
» - DOCIORT 8IW PROPOSED BKTRACTIOM MBU. LOCATION
I ' ' ' / ' I •
• ' / ' , ' I
/ !< //(••££
-------
ESTIMATED FLOW RATES
Macon Site 28 gpm
Dockery Site 12 gpm
Extraction
Wells
ConccntratkM
EqinltatkNi
Monitoring
Discharge to
Solomons Creek
or Infillration
Gallery
Air
Stripper
Coagulation/
Filtration
Note: • For purposes of the Feasibility Study, separate treatment facilities would be constructed for the Macon and
Dockery sites. Actual treatment requirements would be determined during Remedial Design. The actual
method of metals removed (if necessary) and discharge of treated groundwater would be determined
during Remedial Design.
Figure 10
Groundwater Treatment
Plow Diagram
Alternative (JWC-2A
-------
Macau/DOCX&KX
evaluated by utilizing the EPA SCREEN modal (EPA-450/2-78-027R). The results of
the air dispersion nodal conducted to estimate the airborne concentrations at
the property line found that the contaminant levels would be below allowable
state levels. Emission from proposed air strippers, therefore, will not
adversely impact the air quality of the site and its surroundings.
Filtration is a physical process in which metals are removed from groundwater
by forcing the fluid through a porous media. The metals are trapped or
enmeshed in the media. Filtration has been identified to be a successful
treatment technology for the removal of metals.
Coagulation is a phyBiochemical process used to agglomerate colloidal
suspensions and other small particulate matter that cannot be removed through
standard filtration, coagulation can generate significant volumes of sludge
that would require subsequent treatment and/or disposal. Commonly used
coagulants used for metals removal include lime, ferric sulfate, ferric
chloride and alum. Coagulation is an effective technology for the removal of
particulate metals.
Filtration would significantly remove metals. Coagulation would provide a
further level of treatment if filtration alone could not achieve the required
discharge levels for metals. Actual metals treatment requirements, if
necessary, will be established during Remedial Design.
Discharge of treated groundwater could be either to a surface water (Solomons
creek) or to an infiltration gallery, surface water discharge would require a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, with an
infiltration gallery, the treated ground water is pumped into trenches lined
with gravel and allowed to percolate into the soil. A positive hydraulic head
is the driving force behind the system, as opposed to an active pumping system
injecting the water into the subsurface. The success of this method is
dependent on vadose zone acceptance of the treated water. An approved method
of percolation testing would be required to determine permissible application
rates of treated water. The infiltration gallery must be located so that
recharge to the aquifer does not interfere with the performance of the
extraction system. ,.
Estimated period of operation: 30 years
Estimated Total Cost (net present worth)s
Alternative GWC-2A $6,900,000
The response actions to address source control (SC) at the Macon/Dockery site
are:
sc-1: NO action
sc-2: Cap former Lagoon 7 and Lagoon 10
97
-------
MACOH/DOCXSKI ROD
SC-3t Soil vapor extraction (SVE) for Lagoon 7, cap Lagoon 10
sc-4t SVE for Lagoon 7, bioremediation for Lagoon 10
SC-St SVE for Lagoon 7, off-site disposal for Lagoon 10
Below are descriptions of each of the source control/remediation alternatives.
SO-ls Ho Action
Under the no action alternative, no further remedial activities would occur.
Subsurface soils underlying former Lagoon 7 would continue to act as a source
of chemicals to groundwater and the temporary cover over Lagoon 10 would remain
in place and unimproved. This no action alternative is required under the NCP
to serve as a baseline for comparison. A five year review of remedy would be
required.
The Mo Action alternative could be readily implemented, and would not hinder
any future remedial actions. There are no construction costs associated with
this alternative. However, operation and maintenance (O*M) costs would involve
review of the remedy every five years.
Estimated Period of Operation: 30 years
Total construction costs: $0
Estimated Present Worth otM Costs: $190.000
Estimated Total Costs (net present worth): $190,000
sc-2: Cap former Lagoon 7 and Lagoon 10
This alternative involves construction and operation of two low permeability
caps over Lagoon 7 and Lagoon 10, as shown in Figure 11 and 12. The areal
extent of the cap for Lagoon 7 and Lagoon 10 would be approximately 7,500
square feet and 13,000 square feet, respectively. The cap over Lagoon 7 would
address the potential for residual soil concentrations of PCS to impact ground
water above remediation levels. The existing cap over Lagoon 10 would be
replaced with a permanent design as a preventive maintenance measure to allow
better long-tern control of waste residuals.
capping is the covering of contaminated wastes or soils, in this approach, a
layer of compacted soil would be used to cover the area; this layer would be
covered with an impermeable synthetic liner to prevent wind, rain, and melting
snow from oasxying contaminants beyond their primary location. This approach
would alee prevent direct human and animal contact with contaminants. The
finished cap would be covered with soil and seeded for erosion control and to
make it blend into the landscape. Maintenance is minimal, requiring periodic
inspections and the filling of cracks or depressions, if they appear.
construction of a cap would involve heavy earth moving and grading equipment
and the clearing of vegetation. Existing site access would probably have to be
improved. Dust control measures would be taken to minimize short term
potential release of airborne particulates. In the implementation of this
98
-------
FQRMERiAioON;
PROPOSED CAP AT FOHMi
LAGOON 7
UPPER MACON SITE
-------
SOLOMONS CREEK
FIGURE 12
PROPOSED CAP AT LAGO<
LOWER MACON SITE
-------
HACOH/DOCXERT ROD
option, groundwater observation walls not required for long-tarn monitoring
would ba abandoned. Drainage awalas and a saeurity fanca would ba conatructad
along the cap perimeter. Deed restrictions would ba included in the
implementation of this alternative in order to control future use of the site.
There arc no ARARs for capping at the site, and Resource conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) disposal requirements are not applicable; however, the
single synthetic liner cap design would meet an equivalent standard of
performance to RCRA requirements.
Long-term effectiveness and permanence of this approach would rely on regular
inspections to ensure the reliability of the cap; an inspection and maintenance
schedule would be implemented following construction and continue as long as
chemical residuals remained at the Site. Evaluation of cap effectiveness would
be performed through periodic groundwater monitoring. If deemed necessary
during the design phase, gas vents will be incorporated into the cap. Because
residuals would remain at the site, CERCLA section 121(c) requires a review of
effectiveness and protectiveness be made every five years.
operating cost would be incurred to maintain the cap and to develop reports
and reviews of the Site remedy every five years. Biannual sampling would be
conducted under this alternative.
Estimated Period of Operation: 30 years
Estimated Total construction costs: ' $430,000
Estimated Present Worth O&M Costs: $260.000
Estimated Total Cost (net present worth)i $690,000
10
SC-3: soil vapor extraction (SVK) for Lagoon 7, cap Lagoon
This alternative involves the construction and operation of a replacement cap
over Lagoon 10 and a soil vapor extraction (SVE) system at former Lagoon 7.
capping is presented under Alternative sc-2. The analysis here will focus on
additional consideration* associated with application of SVB.
SVB would ba applied to former Lagoon 7 for the removal of tetrachloroethene
(PCE). Based on the v» modeling, PCS is the only compound in site soils with
the potential to causa ground water to exceed groundwater remediation levels.
Also based on the VIP modeling, target remediation levels for SVE at the site
would ba 3000 ug/kg PCS in the vadose zone'beneath former Lagoon 7.
SVE typioatUy includes a series of slotted vertical injection vents connected
by a COBBJOO manifold to an extraction pump or blower, volatile compounds and
some SVOC's are withdrawn through an induced pressure gradient in the
subsurface. Air emission* from the SVE system may require treatment, such as
being scrubbed or sent through an activated carbon filter, prior to being
vented to the atmosphere. The need for emission control would be determined
during the design, upon completion of SVE activities, there would no longer be
a significant source of chemicals to impact groundwater quality above the
identified ARARS. The effectiveness of SVB in thai removal of PCE from site
101
-------
MaCOH/DOCSERY ROD
soils would be evaluated through periodic sampling of the air emissions. Soil
borings would b« required to confirm that the tetrachloroethene remediation
levels had been achieved.
Estimated Period of operation: 1 year (SVE); 30 years (Cap)
Estimated Total Construction Costa: $630,000
Estimated Present worth otM costs» $370.000
Estimated Total Cost (net present worth): $1,000,000
SC-4: SVB for Lagoon 7, bioremediation for Lagoon 10
This alternative involves the operation of a SVE system at former Lagoon 7 and
biological treatment of Lagoon 10 wastes in a controlled cell. A description
of-the SVB system is presented in Alternative SC-3. Deed restrictions could
provide an added measure of safety by alerting potential property buyers of
residual contamination or by restricting usage of the property
Biological treatment would be applied to Lagoon 10 (Figure 11). Lagoon 10
contains various organic wastes, including 950 tons of creosote and solidified
sludge collected during EPA's immediate removal action.
Biodegradation of these compounds has been demonstrated under a variety of
environmental conditions and soil types. Previous studies have reported 80 to
90% removal of these compounds in less .than four months of treatment. This
technology is proposed in conjunction with SVE as an innovative alternative by
which Lagoon 10 wastes may be permanently destroyed. Installation of the SVE
system at Lagoon 7 may proceed concurrently with biological treatment of the
Lagoon 10 soils.
specific remedial objectives would be established after evaluation of a
treatability study. Treatment levels that could be achieved for the Lagoon 10
chemical residuals would be determined. As discussed, these residuals are not
expected to impact ground water. Any risks posed by the treatment residuals
would be through incidental human exposure. Risk assessment guidelines would
be used to establish protective levels of human health. Should the final
treatment levels be within the risk-based levels, the treated materials would
be replaced directly in the-lagoon. If the treatment levels exceed the
risk-based levels, a low permeability cap as described for Alternative sc-2
would be placed over the treated materials to deny incidental human exposure.
RCRA land disposal restrictions (LOR) are potential ARARs if the Lagoon 10
material* «z» determined to be a characteristic or listed hazardous waste.
Compounds' within Lagoon 10 are not among the characteristic waste compounds of
the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching procedure (TCLP; 55 FR 11798) that
establishes characteristic hazardous wastes. Lagoon 10 materials therefore
cannot be a characteristic waste. To be classified as listed hazardous waste
under RCRA, the following information must be ascertained: The exact
identification of the original waste stream, whether or not the material was
off-specification or past shelf life, and the material must contain a chemical
listed in 40 cnt 261.33 as the sole active ingredient. The information
102
-------
MtCOB/DOCXSRI ROD
collected thusfar in the RI/FS is insufficient to make these determinations,
and therefore the material in Lagoon 10 cannot be classified as listed
hazardous waste under RCRA. RCRA LDR are therefore not ARAR for the treatment
or disposal of Lagoon 10 materials.
Lagoon 10 wastes would be excavated and transferred to a lined waste treatment
cell where bioremediation would be conducted and monitored. The treatment cell
would be enclosed within a greenhouse-type structure that would serve to
maintain optimum microbial growth conditions and to control any air emissions.
Vapor phase carbon adsorption would be used, as necessary, to control emission
concentrations from the greenhouse. Treatment design and operation would be
established during Remedial Design.
Treated wastes would be returned to Lagoon 10 upon reaching the targeted
remediation level. The area containing the treated waste will be covered with
clean soil, graded, and revegetated. Actual closure requirements would be
established during Remedial Design.
Estimated Period of operation: 1 year (SVE); 25-31 months (Bioremediation)
Estimated Total Construction Costs: $1,300,000
Estimated Present Worth O4M costs: S 200.000
Estimated Total Cost (net present worth): $1,500,000
SC-5: SVB for Lagoon 7, off-cite disposal for Lagoon 10
This alternative involves the construction and operation of a soil vapor
extraction system at former Lagoon 7 and excavation of Lagoon 10 wastes for
disposal at a hazardous waste landfill. Detailed analysis of soil vapor
extraction at Lagoon 7 is presented in Alternative SC-3. off-site disposal of
Lagoon 10 wastes would significantly reduce the volume of waste materials and
provide a more comprehensive restoration of the site.
off-site landfilling of Lagoon 10 materials would have to conform to RCRA land
disposal restrictions (LDR; 40 cnt 268) if the materials were determined to be
hazardous. The materials in Lagoon 10 come from a number of unknown, disparate
sources that cannot be identified with any certainty. These materials would
therefore be classified as soil and debris potentially containing hazardous
waste under the LDR. SPA's office of solid and Hazardous waste has postponed
final standards for soils and debris until May of 1992. until then,
landfillinf of soils and debris would be based on whether the materials were
considers* huardous under TCLP analysis, should the materials exceed TCL?
regulatory levels, they would be disposed in a hazardous cell at a
RCRA-apprevsd facility. Otherwise, the Lagoon 10 soils could be placed in a
non-hazardous cell at the facility.
Removal of the waste materials would first involve removal of the synthetic
liner and the overlying clay cover. The waste materials would then be
excavated to native soils, a depth of approximately 10 feet. The volume of
waste materials is estimated to be approximately 1,000 cubic yards. Excavated
soils would be placed into lined roll-off boxes and then covered with a tarp.
103
-------
MACOeYDOCXSRY ROD
control'and ambient air monitoring would be conducted to minimize any air
emission impacts. Following removal of all waste materials, the excavation
would be backfilled with native soils and covered with compacted clay remaining
from the cap.
If the Lagoon 10 materials are hazardous, they would be manifested per RCRA
requirement* and hauled by a registered hazardous waste transporter. Trucks
would be washed down prior to leaving the site.
The actual disposal requirements and RCRA-approved facility would be determined
during Remedial Design.
Estimated Period of Operation: 1 year (SVE); 1 month (Disposal)
CLASSIFICATION
Hazardous Non-hazardous
Estimated Total construction Costs: $660,000 $410,000
Estimated Present Worth otM Costs: $110.000 $110.000
Estimated Total Cost (net present worth): $770,000 $520,000
t
S TO ADDRESS V8SS'lrr-g
There are 8 vats, 2 tankers, and 14 tanks at the Macon/Dockery site. The
contents of the site vessels are summarized in Table 55. Also on site is a
box trailer containing fertilizer and a boiler which may have asbestos
insulation. Following is a discussion of alternatives v-1 (no action) and v-2
(off -site disposal).
v-1: Ho Action
vessels would be left in place under this alternative, since the vessels and
their contents would not be addressed under this alternative, any potential
risks would remain. There would be no reduction in toxic ity or mobility of the
vessel contents. The volume of wastes in the vessels may fluctuate some
depending on rainwater influx and evaporation of oil and water. Periodic
inspection* would be required to evaluate containment of the vessel residuals.
A five-year review of this remedy would be required since waste materials would
remain at the »ite.
chemical pjsjj&sls within site vessels are contained and represent an
accidental exposure risk rather than an incidental exposure risk, vessels were
therefore net considered in the baseline risk assessments. The vessels
represent a potential safety hazard. This alternative would not eliminate
potential risk* from accidental spills of the vessel contents or from physical
injury from climbing on the vessels.
No action would pose no additional short term risks to the community or the
environment during implementation. However, as the integrity of the vessels
104
-------
ROD
degrade, the.-potential for the release of the contents of the vessels
ineraaaa. Ho action can ba implemented immediately.
There are no construction coats for this alternative. Operating coats would
consist of an annual inapection and review of remedy every five years.
Estimated Total Construction coats: 9 0
Estimated Present worth O&M costs: S90.000
Estimated Total Coat (net present worth): $90,000
V-2* Off-sit* diapoaal
Alternative V-2 would involve transferring all veaael contents into secure
transportation vehicles and dismantling the vessels, some or all of the
buildings may need to be demolished and removed during remediation of the
site. Hazardous veaael contents would be taken to a RCRA-approved facility for
disposal. Non-hazardous vessel contents and the vesael pieces would be
recycled or sent to an industrial landfill for disposal.
contents of the Site vessels are characterized in Table 38 and are summarized
in Table 55. Hazardous solids would be drummed and taken to a RCRA-approved
landfill for disposal while the remaining solids (including tar) would be
disposed as non-hazardous waste. Hater would be sent through the ground water
treatment system, or taken to the local Publicly Owned Treatment Works for
disposal, pending comparison with pretreatment requirements. Oil would be
pumped into tanker trucks for offsite reclamation or incineration, ultimate
disposition of the oils would be baaed on the bulk concentrations in the tanker
that would be sent to the receiving facility.
Fertilizer in the box trailer and the boiler insulation would be disposed of as
non-hazardous waste or recycled. Boiler insulation has not been characterized
but, based on the assumed age of construction, may contain asbestos.
characterization of the insulation would be required^ prior to dismantling the
boiler. To be conservative, it is assumed that disposal of boiler insulation
would have to comply with asbestos handling requirements.
Potential risk* fro* the vessels would be accidental and were not; .< addressed, in
the baseline risk asaessaents. This alternative would eliminate potential
risks from accidental spills of the vessel contents or from physical injury
froa climbing ea the vessels.
RCRA regulations ware identified as potentially relevant and appropriate ARARs
for vess«i resjsdiation. RCRA disposal guidance waa identified as an
action-specific ARAR while RCRA hazard characteristics were identified as a
chemical-specific ARAR (i.e., TCLP).
It is not known if the industrial boiler (Building 2, Figure 1) contains
friable asbestos. If this boiler does contain asbestos, three potential
action-specific ARARs may apply for offsite disposal: (1) 29 CFR parts
1910.1001 and 1926.58 (general asbestos regulations under the Occupational
105
-------
Tabto 35
SUMMARY OF VESSEL CONTENTS
VOLUME (Gallons)
HAZARDOUS* NON-HAZARDOUS TOTAL
Solids 100 500 600
Water 0 13,500 13,500
Oil 600 8,900 9,500
Tar 0 900 900
* Characterization as a hazardous waste is based on TCLP analysis. Lead was the only
constituent to exceed the TCLP regulatory level, in Vat 4, Tank 3 and Tank 4 (Table 3.10).
106
-------
nCOH/DOCXZBZ ROD
safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and construction/demolition
regulations, respectively), (2) North Carolina specifications for Asbestos
Abatement (Division of state Construction, Department of Administration, as
amended ia February 1988) and (3) 40 CFR Part 61 (CAA) EPA National Emission
Standard* for Hazardous Air pollutants (NESHAP). Most of these regulations
pertain to the packing and shipping of asbestos-containing materials such that
the amount of asbestos fibers entering the air and affecting potential human
exposure are minimized. Alternative v-2 would follow the OSHA, North Carolina
and EPA requirements and therefore would comply with these potential ARARS.
Since the vessels and their contents would be taken off-site and recycled or
disposed, there would be no residual risk following implementation of
Alternative V-2. since the tankers contain solids or tar that are not
hazardous according to RCRA toxicity characteristics, and would be difficult to
clean because of the tar and solids residues, off-site burial at an industrial
landfill (non-hazardous) would be feasible.
The volume and toxicity of materials at the Site would be permanently reduced
under this alternative. Incineration (hazardous materials) or recycling
(non-hazardous) would effect a permanent reduction in the absolute volume of
vessel contents.
vessel removal is estimated to take 2 months, short term risks involved in
this alternative would be from cutting to dismantle the vessels and in moving
the site vessels, other risks could resort from the removal of the solids from
Vat 4 because of the dust that could be generated, and from removal of the
boiler if it is found to contain friable asbestos. However, the low amount of
lead and the small volume of solids in vat 4 would minimize any effects from
the dust. Dust control and ambient air monitoring would be conducted to
minimize potential risks to the community. Potential worker exposure would be
reduced by using the appropriate personal protective equipment, as directed by
the remedial health and safety plan.
cleaning and removal of waste storage tanks has been successfully accomplished
at numerous hazardous waste sites and there are no special requirements at this
sit* that would lead to- implementation concerns. Transferring the vessel
contents and dismantling the vessels would be readily implemented.
If found to contain asbestos, the boiler would most likely be disposed in an
industrial waste cell at a municipal landfill. Asbestos is not considered a
hazardous waste.
Costs assmisjtsjd with Alternative v-2 would be direct and indirect construction
costs. Tfcssr* would be no operational costs.
Estimated Total Construction costs: $300,000
Estimated Present north out costs: $ 0
Estimated Total Cost (net present worth): $300,000
107
-------
1OCOH/DOCKBKT ROD
The three potential remedial alternatives to address groundwater control, five
potential remedial alternatives to address source control, and two alternatives
to address vessels were evaluated using the nine evaluation criteria as set
forth in the NCP 40 C.F.R. S 300.430 (e)<9). A brief description of each of
the nine evaluation criteria is provided below.
Threshold Criteria
1. overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment addresses how
an alternative as a whole will protect human health and the
environment. This includes an assessment of how the public health
and environment risks are properly eliminated, reduced, or controlled
through treatment, engineering controls, or controls placed on the
property to restrict access and (future) development. Deed
restriction* are examples of controls to restrict development.
(ARARsl addresses whether or not a remedy complies with all state and
federal environmental and public health laws and requirements that
apply or are relevant and appropriate to the conditions and cleanup
options at a specific site. If an ARAR cannot be met, the analysis
of the alternative must provide the grounds for invoicing a statutory
waiver.
Primary Balancing Criteria
3. Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence refers to the ability of an
alternative to maintain reliable protection of human health and the
environment over time once the cleanup goals have been met.
4. Reduction of Toxieitv. MobilityT or volume are the three principal
measures of the overall performance of an alternative. The 1986
amendments to the superfund statute emphasize that, whenever
possible, EPA should select a remedy that uses a treatment process to
permanently reduce the level of toxicity of contaminants at the site;
the spread of contaminants away from the source of contaminants; and
the volume, or amount, of contamination at the site.
5. thort-term Effectiveness refers to the likelihood of adverse impacts
oev human health or the environment that may be posed during the
construction and implementation of an alternative until cleanup goals
are) achieved.
6. Tfflrltrtntabilitv refers to the technical and administrative
feasibility of an alternative, including the availability of
materials and services needed to implement the alternative.
108
-------
ROD
' 7. coat includes the capital (up-front) cost of implementing an
alternative, as well as the cost of operating and maintaining the
alternative over the long term, and the net present worth of both the
capital and operation and maintenance costa.
Modifying Criteria
8. State Acceptance addresses whether, based on its review of the RI/FS
and Proposed Plan, the state concurs with, opposes, or has no
comments on the alternative EPA is proposing as the remedy for the
site.
9. Community Acceptance addresses whether the public concurs with EPA'a
Proposed Plan, community acceptance of this Proposed Plan will be
evaluated based on comments received at the public meetings and
during the public comment period.
These evaluation criteria relate directly to requirements in section 121 of
CERCLA, 42 O.S.C. section 9621, which determine the overall feasibility and
acceptability of the remedy. Threshold criteria must be satisfied in order for
a remedy to be eligible for selection. Primary balancing criteria are used to
weigh major trade-offs between remedies. State and community acceptance are
modifying criteria formally taken into account after public comment is received
on the Proposed Plan. The evaluation of the three potential remedial
alternatives to address groundwater control, five potential remedial
alternatives to address source control, and two alternatives to address vessels
were developed as follows (Table 56). -
The following alternatives were subjected to detailed analysis for migration
control:
GWC-lAt Ho Action
owe-IB» Long-term Monitoring of Groundwater
GWC-2At Recovery and Treatment of all Site Groundwater exceeding
Oroundvater Remediation Levels using Air stripping,
coagulation/filtration
overall FMteotion of flMffflfl Health and the environment
The no action and long-term monitoring of groundwater alternatives would be
protective of human health and the environment under current condition, in the
future, ground water migration will not pose a risk to the environment, but
could pose a risk to human health if a potable well were to be installed at the
site, currently there are no ground water receptors at the site or immediately
downgradient of the property, and future receptors are unlikely, consequently,
the risk estimate for the site is an estimate of potential future risk of human
health.
109
-------
TABLE s«
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH COSTS FOR
RETAINED REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
Ground Water Control
GWC-1A
GWC-1B
GWC-2A
Source Control
SC-1
SC-2
SC-3
SC-4
SC-5
V-1
V-2
MACON/DOCKERY SITE
Corrective Action
No action
Long-term monitoring
of ground water
Ground water extraction
for MCLs across Site, air
stripping, coagulation/
filtration
No action
Cap former Lagoon 7 and
Lagoon 10
Soil vapor extraction for
former Lagoon 7, cap
Lagoon 10
Total Present
Worth Costs
$140,000
$1,800,000
$6,900,000 (X year duration)
Sofl vapor extraction for
former Lagoon 7, off-site
landflfling for Lagoon 10
No action
Off-site disposal
$190,000
$690,000
$1,100,000
Soil vapor extraction for $1,500,000
former Lagoon 7, bioremediate
Lagoon 10
$770,000 (hazardous)
$520,000 (non-hazardous)
$90,000
$300,000
110
-------
KaCOB/DOCXXRT ROD
Alternative CWC-2A would be protective of human health and the environment, now
and in the future, since this treatment alternative would result in MCLS being
achieved at all times at potential exposure points.
compli«pge, with
Concentrations of VOCs in ground water located beneath the site exceed
groundwater remediation levels, consequently the no action alternative (GWC-1A)
and long-term monitoring of groundwater GWC-1B) would not satisfy ARARs across
the site. Ground water extraction alternative GWC-2A would satisfy ground
water ARARs. construction of the ground water extraction, treatment, and
discharge system for Alternative GHC-2A would satisfy action-specific ARARs.
Liono— term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative GWC-2A would permanently reduce the magnitude of potential risks
at the site through future exposure to groundwater. Well point extraction of
ground water and air stripping are demonstrated technologies that can be
readily inspected and repaired, if necessary. Air stripping can readily
achieve the concentrations necessary for discharge to Solomons creek. Periodic
samplings of the treated effluent would be required.
Reduction of Toxic itv. Mobility or volume
The no action and long-term monitoring of groundwater alternatives would not
significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility or volume of contaminants in ground
water. Alternative GWC-2A would permanently reduce the mass of voca in ground
water .
short-term Effectiveness
None of the alternatives would pose a risk to the community or remedial workers
through implementation. Construction schedules for the alternatives would be:
Alternative GKC-1A: none
Alternative GNC-lBt 1 month
Alternative GWC-2A« 4 months
Implementation of Alternative CWC-2A would require approximately 30 years.
None of tbs> alternatives would pose any significant difficulties regarding
construction or operation. Design of any treatment system could not be
completed until discharge requirements were defined.
cost
Total present worth costs for the ground water control alternatives are
presented below t
111
-------
IttCOBT/DOCXBRY ROD
Alternative GWC-1A: $ 140,000
Alternative GWC-IB: $1,840,000
Alternative GWC-2A: $6,900,000 (30 year duration.)
b.
The following alternatives were developed for Site soils and were subjected to
detailed analysis:
SC-1: Ho action
SC-2: Cap former Lagoon 7 and Lagoon 10
SC-3: Soil vapor extraction (SVE) for Lagoon 7, cap Lagoon 10
SC-4: SVE for Lagoon 7, bioremediation for Lagoon 10
SC-5j SVE for Lagoon 7, off-site disposal for Lagoon 10
A summary of the evaluation of these alternatives is presented below.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The no action alternative is not protective of human health and the environment
and does not assure the attainment of ARARs. Capping (Alternative SC-2) and
SVE (Alternatives SC-3, 4, and 5) would reduce chemical loadings to ground
water from Lagoon 7 and thereby lessen any risks to potential downgradient
receptors in the future. Long term containment or remediation of Lagoon 10
will be necessary to control any potential future risk posed by these wastes.
compliance with ARARs
The only identified ARAR for site surficial soils are the proposed RCRA
corrective action levels. The only surficial soil compound posing potential
risk* is arsenic, whose maximum concentration was significantly less than the
RCRA action level. Concentrations at the site and therefore each of the source
control alternatives, satisfy the RCRA action level.
soils at Lagoon 7 have caused vocs in groundwater to exceed groundvater
remediation levels. Capping and SVE would'significantly reduce further
leaching oC contaminants to ground water from Lagoon 7. The cap in
Alternatives) *c-2 and 3 would be designed to comply with RCRA performance
standard*. The SVE system in Alternatives SC-3, 4, and 5 would be operated in
accordance with North Carolina air emission requirements, off-site disposal
(e.g., landfilling) of soils would comply with EPA's off-site policy and land
disposal restriction* (Alternative sc-5).
Long-term Effectiveness and Perm«nence
Based on the VIP model, PCS is the only compound found in site soils with the
112
-------
MaCOBJ/DOCKSRY ROD
potential to-'impact groundwatar above remediation levels. The migration of PCX
to groundmter from Lagoon 7 would be permanently controlled by capping and
SVZ. The net reduction in chemical residual through bioremediation
(Alternative SC-4) would require a treatability study.
Reduction of Toxleitv. Mobility or volume
The no action alternative would not significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility
or volume of remaining site residuals, capping would significantly reduce the
mobility of site residuals. SVZ would significantly reduce the volume of site
residual! that could impact groundvater above remediation levels.
Bioremediation would effect a permanent but undetermined reduction in the
volume of chemical residuals in Lagoon 10. The volume of chemical residuals at
the site would be significantly reduced through off-site landfilling of Lagoon
10 waste materials.
short-term Effectiveness
None of the alternatives would pose a risk to the community or remedial worker
through implementation. Construction and operation schedules for the
alternatives would be:
Alternative SC-1: 0 months
Alternative sc-2: 3 months
Alternative SC-3« 6-12 months
Alternative SC-4: 25-31 months
Alternative SC-5: 2 months
Imolementabilitv
Hone of the alternative would pose any significant construction nor operational
difficulties, although periodic inspections and repair of the cap(s) would be
required. Actual implementation requirements for bioremediation would be
established through treatability testing.
cost
Total present worth costs for the source control alternatives are presented
belowt
Alternative sols $ 190,000
Alternative sc-2« $ 690,ooo
Altanative 8C-3i $1,100,000
Alternative sc-4s $1,500,000
Alternative SC-5i $ 770,000 (hazardous)
$ 520,000 (non-hazardous)
113
-------
BOO
C. .
Two alternatives were considered for Site vessels:
V-lj No action
V-2: Off-site disposal
The vessel alternatives are compared below.
Overall Protection of Human Heath and the Environment
Alternative v-1 would not eliminate potential risks from accidental spills of
the vessel contents or from physical injury from climbing on the vessels
whereas Alternative V-2 would.
Compliance with ARARs
RCRA regulations were identified as potentially relevant and appropriate ARARs
for off-site disposal of vessel contents. This action-specific ARAR for
off-site disposal, however, is not an ARAR under the no action alternative.
Consequently, this alternative would not violate any identified ARARS.
Alternative V-2 would follow appropriate RCRA, OSHA, KESHAP, and North Carolina
requirements and therefore would comply with these potential ARARS.
Long-tarn Effectiveness and Permanence •
since the vessels and their contents would not be addressed under alternative
v-1, any potential risks would remain. Periodic inspections would be required
to evaluate containment of the vessel residuals. A five-year review of remedy
would be required since waste materials would remain at the Site.
since the vessels and their contents would be taken off-site and recycled or
disposed (with the possible exception of the tankers), there would be no
residual risk following implementation of Alternative V-2. Since the tankers
contain solid* or tar that are not hazardous according to RCRA toxicity
characteristics, and would be difficult to clean because of the tar and solids
residues, off-site burial at an industrial landfill (non-hazardous) would be
feasible.
Reduction *** 9axi.ei.tv. Mohilitv and Voliim*
There woaleTse* no reduction in toxicity or mobility of the vessel contents
under alternative v-1. The volume of wastes in the vessels may fluctuate tome
depending on rainwater influx and evaporation of oil and water.
The volume and toxicity of materials at the site would be permanently reduced
under alternative V-2. incineration (hazardous materials) or recycling
(non-hazardous) would effect a permanent reduction in the absolute volume of
vessel contents.
114
-------
Shor<-term
No action would not eliminate potential risks to the conmunity or the
environment daring implementation. Ho action can be implemented immediately.
vessel removal is estimated to take 2 months. Short term risks involved in
this alternative would be from cutting to dismantle the vessels and in moving
the Site vessels, other risks could result from the removal of the solids from
Vat 4 because of the dust that could be generated, and from removal of the
boiler if it is found to contain friable asbestos. However, the low amount of
lead and the small volume of solids in vat 4 would minimize any effects from
the dust. Dust control and ambient air monitoring would be conducted to
minimize potential risks to the community, potential worker exposure would be
reduced by using the appropriate personal protective equipment, as directed by
the remedial health and safety plan.
Implementabilitv
Consideration of implementability is not applicable since the vessels would not
be addressed under the no action alternative (V-l),
Cleaning and removal of waste storage tanks has been successfully accomplished
at numerous hazardous waste sites and there are no special requirements at this
Site that would lead to implementation concerns. There are a number of
qualified companies that specialize in this type of remedial work.
Transferring the vessel contents and dismantling the vessels would be readily
implemented.
cost
Total present worth costs for the vessel alternatives are presented below:
Alternative v-lt $ 90,000
Alternative v-2: $ 300,000
d.
state and coanunity acceptance are modifying criteria, that shall be considered
in selecting the remedial action.
state
The State) «f North Carolina concurs with the selected remedy.
A Proposed Plan Fact sheet was released to the public on July 25, 1991. The
Proposed Plan public meeting was held on August 6, 1991.
The public comment period on the Proposed Plan was to be held from July 25,
1991, to August 23, 1991. The public comment period was extended an additional
115
-------
30 days in response to a request for an extension dated August 19, 1991
received froa the PRPs. Due to the letter from the PRPs requesting an
extension, the public comment period did not end until September 23, 1991.
Two letters and one set of written comments were received during the public
comment period. These letters, comments, and questions asked during the August
6 public meeting are summarized in the attached Responsiveness summary.
116
-------
MeCOH/DOOOSRI ROD
Section 121 of CERCLA, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 5 9621, and the National Oil and
Hazardous Substance pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) establish a variety of
requirements relating to the selection of the remedial action under CERCLA.
Having applied the evaluation criteria to the three potential remedial
alternatives to address groundvater control, five potential remedial
alternatives to address source control, and two alternatives to address
vessels, EPA has selected the following remedy for the Hacon/Dockery site.
Ground Water Control
GWC-2A Recovery and Treatment of all site Groundvater exceeding
Groundvater Remediation Levels using Air stripping,
coagulation/filtration
source control
SC-4 soil vapor extraction (SVE) for Lagoon 7, bioremediation for
Lagoon 10
Vessels
V-2 Off-ait*- disposal
A description of the selected remedies can be found in Section 8 of the ROD.
TRRATMEHT. AHD DISCHARGE
This remedial action vill consist of a groundvater extraction and treatment
system, and an overall monitoring program for the Site. Groundvater
contaminated above the remediation levels indicated in Table 57 vill be
extracted across the entire Site. This vill be accomplished by installing a
series of extraction wells located within and at the periphery of the
contaminant plume in the aquifer.
The estimated total volumetric flov is 57,600 gallons per day. This is based
on a 40 gpa> groundvater extraction system operating 24 hours a day. More
precise gxoondvater vithdraval and discharge values vill be developed as part
of the rsaadisl design. As stated previously, the point of compliance is the
entire Slte>.
The extraction system vill be developed in the remedial design, it is
anticipated that 12 extraction veils vill be needed (refer to Figure 8 and 9).
Additional monitoring veils, pump tests and groundvater modeling may be
required for the design of the extraction system.
117
-------
luUlu 57 tiiuund- Wului lluiiHiillitllon (.uvula l:oi Iliu Mauun/Uuuluiiy Ulle
do
T>
08
1
u
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
Cliuinluiil
Antimony
Doiluin
Betyllluiii
Cadmium
Chromium
.onU
Manganese <
Mercury
Nllohol
Vanadium
Zlno
[2 vanlUo
Isophoroiio
Aoelone
Benzuiio
Chloroloriu
1,1 -Dlcliloioullmuu
1,1 -Dlchloiuulliaiiu ,
1,2-Dlclitoroolliuno (lolal)
Molhylone Chloildu
Telrocliloroolliuno
Toluene
1,1,1-TilolilorouJluuiu
trJchloroelliene
Vinyl Chloride
Xylenes (Total)
MllKllllUIII
Cone.
(UU/L)
uu
G7IU
22
G
HUU
7U
utau
0.3
2120
U27
730
10.4
2
GO
0
17
1UO
CIO
150
2
44
7
500
2UO
510
9
Well
lumber
1U
0
G
1C
5
0
G
15
U
C
0
1 10
0,10
20
ID
1
U.I'J
15
5
2A
5
« '
15
2
9
19
Remediation
/Level
'(UQ/L)
60
1000 (1)
1
6
60
15
50(3)
1.1
100 (2)
60
5000 13)
164
70
3600
1
.19
3500
7
cls-70;lran»-70
5(2)
0.7
1000
200
2.6
0.015
400
Source
CERCLA Detection Limit
8DWA MCL/NC Ground Water Standard
SDWA MCL
NO Ground Water Standard
NC Ground Water Standard
CEHCLA Level
SDWA MCL/NC Ground Water Standard
NC Ground Water Standard
SDWA MCL
CERCLA Detection Limit
SDWA MCL/NC Ground Water Standard
NC Ground Water Standard
Preliminary Pollutant Limit Value (PPLV)
Preliminary Pollutant Limit Value (PPLV)
NC Ground Water Standard
NC Ground Water Standard
Preliminary Pollutant Limit Value (PPLV)
SDWA MCL/NC Ground Water Standard
NC Ground Water Standard
SDWA MCL/NC Ground Water Standard
NC Ground Water Standard
SDWA MCL/NC Ground Water Standard
SDWA MCL/NC Ground Water Standard
NC Ground Water Standard
NC Ground Water Standard
NC Ground Water Standard
CERCLA Detection Until - Conbacl Required Detection Uiult (Inorganics)
CERCLA QuanllUUon Limit - Contract Required Quantltallon Limit (organlcs)
SDWA MC.L - Sale Diluklng Water Act Maximum Contaminant Level (40 CFR Part 141.61)
North Carolina Ground Water Standard* lor ground water class QA Irom NCAC Title 16A. Ch.2, Oct. 1000
Preliminary Pollutant Limit Value (PPLV) derived In Appendix D ol Hie PS
(1) • Proposed revised MCL lor boilum Is 2UOO uy/L
(2) - Proposed MCL (pMCL)
(3) - Secondary (aesthetic) stunduid
I - Inorganic;U - BaseExiiucluula Oigunlo Compound; V ~ Volatile Organic Compound
-------
mCOBT/DOOKKRY ROD
Treatment of"groundwater will be accomplished by means of an air stripping
tower. From the extraction wells, groundwater will be pumped into an
equalization tank before it is fed to the air stripping system. The air
stripper will remove the VOCs from the groundwater. Discharge of treated
groundwater will be either to a surface water (Solomons Creek) or to an
infiltration gallery. If the treated groundwater meets standards to be
specified in the MPOBS discharge permit, it will be discharged to Solomons
Creek. On-site discharge to an infiltration gallery would have to comply with
the substantive requirements of a Non-Discharge Permit (ISA NCAC 2H.0200) as
administered by the state of North Carolina. Due to the potential of having
concentrations of metals above allowable levels in the effluent under the NPDES
program, it may be necessary to reduce metal concentrations in the groundvater
prior to discharge. Metal removal from the groundwater may consist of
filtration/coagulation or some other coat effective method.
The following details will need to be addressed as part of the remedial design:
(1) the need to remove metals from the extracted groundwater prior to
discharging to Solomons creek or an infiltration gallery; (2) the disposal of
any waste stream associated with the removal of metals; and (3) the need for
controlling the off-gas of the air stripper. The necessity for removing metals
prior to discharging the treated groundwater to Solomons Creek or an on-site
infiltration gallery will be addressed in the preparation for obtaining the
NPDES discharge permit or Non-Discharge Permit. Data generated as part of the
RD will also confirm if the off-gas from the air stripper, laden with volatiles
stripped from the groundwater, will need to be controlled.
As stated previously, the goal of this -remedial action is to restore
groundwater to its beneficial use as a drinking water source. Based on
information obtained during the RI and on a careful analysis of all remedial
alternatives, EPA and the State of North Carolina believe that the selected
remedy will achieve this goal. Groundwater contamination may be especially
persistent in the immediate vicinity of the contaminants' source, where
concentrations are relatively high. The ability to achieve cleanup goals at
all points throughout the area of the plume, cannot be determined until the
extraction system has been implemented, modified as necessary, and plume
response monitored over tine. Xf the implemented groundwater extraction system
cannot meet the specified remediation goals, at any or all of the monitoring
points daring implementation, the contingency measures and goals described
below may replace the selected remedy and goals for these portions of the
plum*. Such contingency measures will, at a "»t"^"VT?') prevent further migration
of the plusjsj and include a combination of containment technologies and
institutional controls. These measures are considered to be protective of
human health- and the environment and are technically practicable under the
correspoadiag- circumstances.
The selected remedy will include groundwater extraction for an estimated period
of 30 years, during which time the system's performance will be carefully
monitored on a regular basis and adjusted as warranted by the performance data
collected during operation. Modifications may include any or all of the
followingi
alternating pumping at wells to eliminate stagnation points;
119
-------
JUCUH/DOCXERT ROD
. - pulse pumping to allow aquifer equilibration and to allow adsorbed
contaminant* to partition into groundwater;
installation of additional extraction wells to facilitate or
accelerate cleanup of the contaminant plume; and
at individual wells where cleanup goals have been attained, and after
analytical confirmation, pumping may be discontinued.
To ensure that cleanup goals will be obtained and maintained, the aquifer will
be monitored at those wells where pumping has ceased initially every year
following discontinuation of groundwater extraction. This monitoring will be
incorporated into an overall site monitoring program which will be fully
delineated in the operations and Maintenance portion of the Remedial Design.
If it is determined, on the basis of the preceding criteria and the system
performance data, that certain portions of the aquifer cannot be restored to
their beneficial use, all of the following measures involving long-term
management may occur, for an indefinite period of time, as- a modification of
the existing system:
engineering controls such as physical barriers, or long-term gradient
control provided by low level pumping, as containment measures;
chemcial-specific ARARs may be waived for the cleanup of those
portions of the aquifer based on the technical impracticability of
achieving further containment reduction;
institutional controls may be provided/maintained to restrict access
to those portions of the aquifer which remain above health-based
goals, since this aquifer is classified as a potential drinking water
source;
continued monitoring of specified wells; and
- periodic reevaluation of remedial technologies for groundwater
restoration.
The decision to invoke any or all of these measures may be made during a
periodic review of the remedial action, which will occur at intervals of at
least every five years, in accordance with CERCt* 121(e). To ensure state and
public involvement in this decision at this" Site, any changes from the
remediation goals identified in this ROD will be formalized in either an
Zxplanatism of Significant Difference document or an Amendment to this Record
of Decisio*.
Soil Vapor Extraction
A Soil vapor Extraction (SVB) system is an in-situ treatment process used to
120
-------
MACOH/DOCKERY BOO
clean up soils that contain voc« and SVOCa by inducing a vacuum in the
subsurface soils. The SVE system consists of a network of air withdrawal (or
vacuum) well* installed in the unsaturated zone. A pump and manifold system of
PVC pipes i* used for applying a vacuum on the air withdrawal wells which feed
into an in-line water removal system and an in-line vapor phase carbon
adsorption system for voc and svoc removal. The subsurface vacuum propagates
laterally, causing in-situ volatilization of compounds that are adsorbed to
soils. Vaporized compounds and subsurface air migrate to the air extraction
wells, essentially air stripping the soils in-place.
At the Macon/Dockery site, the vacuum wells can be installed vertically to the
water table at predetermined locations to form the extraction system, vertical
wells were selected due to the depth of the soil strata requiring remediation,
geotechnical conditions, and the depth to groundwater.
on.ce the well systeiferis installed and the vacuum becomes fully established in
the soil column, vocs and some svocs are- drawn out of the soil and through the
vacuum wells. In all SVE operations, the daily removal rates decrease as
contaminants are recovered from the soil. This treatment technology has been
proven effective at treating soils that contain .elevated levels of organic
contaminants.
SVE would be applied to former Lagoon 7 for the removal of tetrachloroethene
(PCS). Based on the VIP modeling, PCS is the only compound in site soils with
the potential to cause ground water to exceed groundwater remediation levels.
Also based on the VIP modeling, target remediation- levels for SVE at the Site
would be 3.0 ppm PCE in the vadose zone beneath former Lagoon 7 (Table 58).
The application of SVE to the unsaturated zone remediation is a multi-step
process, specifically, full-scale vacuum extraction systems are designed with
the aid of laboratory and pilot-scale voc stripping tests. Further testing
will be performed as part of the remedial design.
The final disposition of the spent activated carbon from the in-line carbon
adsorption system will be specified in the remedial.design. The three options
to be considered are. treatment, disposal at an approved hazardous waste
landfill or regeneration of the carbon. Compliance with ARARS for RCRA,
including LORs fpr, treatment, storage, and/or disposal of spent carbon will be
required as part of-ths) XP. .. .
'"-••• . • •-'?!
Bi
Implementation of. the biorenediation phase of this alternative would be
preceded tap a treatability study to determine if the indigenous microbial
population. 4» capable of degrading the PAHs in Lagoon 10. other objectives of
the treatability study would include:
determine the percentage of endogenous microorganisms capable of
degrading PAHs;
determine whether the addition of acclimated microorganisms would be
necessary (bioaugmentation);
121
-------
TABU 58
•cure* Remediation Levels for the Macon/DocJcery sit*
Medium
SOIL
SOIL
Chemical
Bens ( a ) anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo ( b ) f luoranthene
Benzo ( k ) f luoranthene
Chryiene
Oibenz ( a , b ) anthracene
Idenopyrene
Tetrachloroethene (PCS)
Remediation
Level
2.0 ppm
(Total)
3.0 ppm
Point of
compliance
Lagoon 10
Lagoon 7
3a«i«
of Goal
Ri«JC
1
1
GK Risk
GW * Groundvattr
122
-------
nCOV/DOCXZRT ROD
, - evaluate chemical/physical soil parameters (e.g., pH, moisture
content, nutrient content, dissolved oxygen content, etc.) and
identify optimal conditions for bioremediation; and
determine biodegradation kinetics and project treatment cycles.
A treatability study work plan would be submitted to EPA for approval prior to
implementation.
A treatability study will be conducted during remedial design to determine the
requirements for bioremediation. A remediation level of 2.0 ppm (total
carcinogenic PAHs) for all contaminated soil from Lagoon 10 will be required
prior to replacing any residual material in the final disposal area (Table
58). Final disposal of treatment residuals shall be coordinated with EPA.
Lagoon 10 wastes would be excavated and transferred to a lined waste treatment
cell where bioremediation would be conducted and monitored. The treatment cell
would be enclosed within a greenhouse-type structure that would serve to
maintain optimum microbial growth conditions and to control any air emissions.
vapor phase carbon adsorption would be used, as necessary, to control emission
concentrations from the greenhouse. A 100-foot by 100-foot waste treatment
cell would be lined with a 60 mil-HOPE liner to provide containment of the
wastes. A 6-inch layer of sand and/or gravel would be placed within the cell
to provide a drainage layer for excess moisture. The waste treatment cell
would be built on a slight incline so that excess moisture would gravity drain
to a sump at the low end of the cell. This water would be reapplied to the
wastes during the next application of nutrients. Fertilizer in the box trailer
at the Upper Macon site would be evaluated as a potential source of nutrients.
Excess water not recycled would be treated in the ground water treatment
system, or disposed otherwise depending on any treatment requirements.
Applying a 6 to 8 inch layer of lagoon soils above the drainage layer would
accommodate approximately 200 cubic yards. Actual treatment design and
operation would be established during Remedial Design.
A significant reduction in PAH concentrations would be expected within 100 days
after treatment begins based on remediation at other sites. The wastes would
be sampled for volatile and semi-volatile analysis just prior to treatment and
100 days into treatment to determine whether target remediation levels have
been achieved. Periodic maintenance requirements would include tilling,
watering, and fertilisation of the wastes. Details of treatment cell
construction and operation would be prepared during Remedial Design.
Treated v**t«s would be returned to Lagoon 10 upon reaching the targeted
remediatioft level. The treatment residuals would be covered with a low
permeability cap. The existing clay at Lagoon 10 would be replaced and
recompacted to fora the cap. The treatment cells would be dismantled and
disposed as non-hazardous waste. Actual closure requirements would be
established during Remedial Design.
123
-------
mediation would involve transferring all vessel contents into secure
transportation vehicles and dismantling the vessels, some or all of the
building* Bay need to be demolished and removed during remediation of the
site. Also, if evidence of leakage ia noted after the vessels are removed, the
remedial action will include cleanup of any soils which have become
contaminated as a result of the leak. Hazardous vessel contents would be taken
to a RCRA-approved facility for disposal. Non-hazardous vessel contents and
the vessel pieces would be recycled or sent to an industrial landfill for
disposal.
Hazardous solids would be drummed and taken to a RCRA-approved landfill for
disposal while the remaining solids (including tar) would be disposed as
non-hazardous waste. Hater would be sent through the ground water treatment
system, or taken to the local Publicly owned Treatment Works for disposal,
pending comparison with pretreataent requirements, oil would be pumped into
tanker truck* for offsite reclamation or incineration, ultimate disposition of
the oils would be based on the bulk concentrations in the tanker that would be
sent to the receiving facility.
Fertilizer in the box trailer and the boiler insulation would be disposed of as
non-hazardous waste or recycled. Boiler insulation has not been characterized
but, based on the assumed age of construction, may contain asbestos.
Characterization of the insulation would be required prior to dismantling the
boiler. To be conservative, it is assumed that disposal of boiler insulation
would have to comply with asbestos handling requirements.
Actual requirement* for vessel remediation would be established during Remedial
Design.
d.
An ecological endangerment assessment conducted for the site identified areas
of possible concern which require further characterization during the Remedial
Design. The following work is required to address the ecological effects of
the contaminated surface water, sediments, and soilst
conduct chronic aquatic toxicity test* for location* where the
toxicity quotient exceed* one;
eolleot representative biota (upper carnivore fish species,
invertebrate species;
conduct sedijnent toxicity tests for those locations where the
toxicity quotient exceed one;
evaluate the potential environmental effects of the contaminated
soil, using soil toxicity testing, elutriate testing, or other
appropriate method*.
124
-------
ROD
Actual stapling and monitoring requirements vill be established during Remedial
Design. If the result* of this additional tasting identify additional areas of
concern, the scope of remediation will not be limited by this ROD.
e. COST
The total present worth cost for the selected alternative is $8,700,000. The
break down of this cost is specified below.
The present worth cost for the groundwater extraction (40 gpm), air stripping,
coagulation/filtration and infiltration gallery is approximately $6,900,000.
This cost includes a capital cost of $1,700,000 for construction of the
groundwater extraction system, the treatment unit, treated groundwater
discharge system, and all associated piping. This cost also includes
expenditures for operation and maintenance of the system of $5,200,000 for 30
years.
The present worth cost for the soil Vapor Extraction at former lagoon 7 and
land treatment at lagoon 10 is approximately $1,500,000. This cost includes a
capital cost of $1,300,000 for installation of the materials for the
bioremediation treatment cell, SVE extraction wells, manifold piping, and
potentially a clay cap for lagoon 10 residuals. This cost also includes
expenditures for operation and maintenance of the system of $200,000 for 30
years; SVE - l year.
The present worth cost for the off-site disposal of vessels is approximately
$300,000. This cost includes a capital cost of $300,000 for vessel demolition
& waste disposal, fertilizer removal, trailer disposal and boiler removal &
disposal. This cost includes no annual expenditures for operation and
maintenance $0.00.
Capital Cost for Groundwater Extraction and Treatment System $1,700,000.00
Operation t Maintenance Costs for 30 years $5,200,000.00
Capital cost for the SVE system and Land Treatment $1,300,000.00
operation * Maintenance costs for 30 years; SVB - 1 year $ 200,000.00
Capital Cost for Off-site disposal of vessels $ 300,000.00
operation < Maintenance Costs for disposal of vessels $ 0.00
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH COST $8,700,000.00
125
-------
11..
Under its legal authorities, EPA'a primary responsibility at Superfund sites is
to undertake remedial actions that achieve adequate protection of human health
and the environment. Zn addition, Section 121 of CERCLA, 42 u.s.c. S 9621,
establishes several other statutory requirements and preferences. These
specify that when complete, the selected remedial action for this site must
comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate environmental standards
established under Federal and state environmental laws unless a statutory
waiver is justified. The selected remedy also must be cost-effective and
utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource
recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable. Finally, the statute
includes a preference for remedies that employ treatment that permanently and
significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous wastes as
their principal element. The following sections discuss how the selected
remedy meets these statutory requirements.
The selected remedy will permanently treat the groundwater and soil and removes
or minimizes the potential risk associated with the wastes. Dermal, ingestion,
and inhalation contact with Site contaminants would be eliminated, and risks
posed by continued groundwater contamination would be reduced.
b. COMPTiTIUTR WITH *»**•
The selected remedy will comply with all Federal- and state applicable or
relevant and appropriate chemical-, location-, and action-specific requirements
(ARARs). compliance with ARARs for each of the components of the selected
remedy is discussed below.
GWC-2As Recovery cad Treatment of all site Groundvater e-rreertlng Groundwater
using Air stripping, coagulation/filtration
Groundwater remediation levels (Table 57) would be met at the site under this
alternative. Discharge of ground water to Solomons creek would satisfy AHQC.
This alternative therefore complies with ARARS.
off-sit* discharge of treated groundwater to a surface water (Solomons creek)
would h*f» to comply with the requirements of an NPDES permit. Discharge to an
inf iltrafetcm gsAlery would have to comply with the requirements of a
Hon-Diseasar^e '•rait. Air stripper emissions would comply with North Carolina
allowable) ambient levels. Substantive requirements would be established during
Remedial Design.
126
-------
SC-41
SOU
10
extrmotion (SVB) for Lagoon 7, bioreaediitinn for Lagoon
Operation of the SVE system would conform to North Carolina air emission
requirements (15 NCAC 2D.1104). The remadial baaltb and aafaty plan would
conform to 29 CFR 1910.120.
There ara no ARARa govarning aubaurface soils at tha sita. AM discussed, RCRA
LOR ara not ARAR for land traatmant of Lagoon 10 materials. Bioramediation
oparationa would conform to North Carolina air emission requirements, as
nacaaaary.
V-2:
Off-ait* disposal
RCRA ragulationa wara idantifiad aa potentially relevant and appropriate ARARa
for vessel remediation. RCRA disposal guidance was identified as an
action-specific ARAR while RCRA hazard characteristics were identified aa a
chemical-specific ARAR (i.e., TCLP). Alternative V-2 would follow appropriate
RCRA requirements and would therefore comply with these potential ARARa.
If the industrial boiler (Building 2, Figure 1) contains friable asbestos,
three potential action-specific ARARa may apply for offsite disposal: (1) 29
CFR parts 1910.1001 and 1926.58 (general asbestos regulations under the
Occupational safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and
construction/demolition regulations, respectively)r (2) North Carolina
specifications for Asbestos Abatement (Division of.state Construction,
Department of Administration, as amended in February 1988) and (3) 40 CFR Part
61 (CAA) EPA National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP). Most of these regulations pertain to the packing and shipping of
asbestos-containing materials such that the amount of asbestos fibers entering
the air and affecting potential human exposure ara minimized. Alternative v-2
would follow the OSHA, North Carolina and EPA requirements and therefore would
comply with these potential ARARS.
The selected groundwater and source remediation technologies are more
cost-effective than the other acceptable alternatives considered primarily
because they provide greater benefit for the cost since they provide for
treatment of the waste.
The selected remedy represents the maximum extent to which permanent solutions
and treatment can be practicably utilized for this action, of the alternatives
that are protective of human health and the environment and comply with ARARS,
EPA and the state have determined that the selected remedy provides the bast
balance of trade-offs in terms of long-term effectiveness and permanence;
reduction in toxicity, mobility or volume achieved through treatment;
127
-------
. EBs«^ -.
128
------- |